Three gardaí suspended since November 2020 have won permission to cross-examine four senior officers on limited issues in their High Court challenges to the continued suspensions.
Alan Griffin, Niall Deegan and John Shanahan are challenging suspensions imposed following allegations connected with the "squaring" away of fixed charge penalty notices. Their suspensions have been reviewed and extended at three-month intervals since 2020.
The cases arise from investigations known as Operation Modulus and Operation Bath. The High Court judgment records that the investigations concerned allegations that fixed charge notices were not written up, were not prosecuted or were cancelled on the system.
The three applicants argue, among other things, that they were not given sufficient material to make informed submissions against the continued suspensions, that the suspensions have become unfair through delay and that they were treated differently from other Garda members facing similar allegations.
Their latest motions concerned how those judicial review cases should now be heard. They asked the court to convert the cases into full plenary proceedings, or alternatively to permit cross-examination of Garda deponents, or to strike out parts of affidavits filed by the respondents.
Mr Justice Micheál O’Higgins refused to convert the proceedings. He held that the applicants had not shown that cross-examination within the existing judicial review structure would be inadequate.
However, the judge found that limited cross-examination was justified. Chief Superintendent Catharina Gunne may be questioned on matters including conclusions and inferences she expressed about the suspensions. Superintendent Paul Kennedy may be questioned about whether the applicants acquiesced in delaying disciplinary investigations. Detective Sergeant Robert Madden and Chief Superintendent Michael McNulty may be questioned on specific disputed conversations involving Garda Griffin.
Permission to cross-examine Detective Inspector Mark Watters was refused.
The court also declined to strike out parts of the respondents’ affidavits, although it criticised some affidavit material as argumentative and containing legal advocacy.
The ruling does not decide whether the suspensions themselves are lawful. Those substantive judicial review challenges remain to be determined.