The High Court has refused Kevin Galvin’s application to overturn his dismissal from An Garda Síochána and be reinstated, finding that he brought his judicial review challenge too late, failed to disclose key correspondence when seeking leave, and had acquiesced in the procedure.
Mr Justice Hedigan said the Commissioner’s dismissal decision had been communicated to Mr Galvin on 10 June 2010. He obtained leave to bring proceedings on 16 September, more than three months later. Although the outer time limit for seeking certiorari was six months, the judge said an application also had to be made promptly. Given the request for reinstatement and the public confidence issues involved, Mr Galvin was required to act “all but immediately”. No explanation for the delay was offered.
The judge also found material non-disclosure in the leave application. Several letters in the dismissal process had not been exhibited, including correspondence about an extension to respond, a proposed six-month probationary period, notice that the Commissioner would seek Government consent, and a request to defer the dismissal. The judge said their omission gave the court a misleading picture of the process and that the explanations provided lacked merit.
On acquiescence, the judge noted that Mr Galvin had participated in the process, made written submissions and proposed a probationary period, but had not sought an oral hearing or raised the objections later advanced in court. The judge concluded that he could not then challenge the procedure.
The judge said these three preliminary findings were each sufficient to dispose of the case. He nevertheless addressed the merits. Mr Galvin argued that he had not been given a chance to respond to additional material sent to the Government, including letters and a report. The judge found that no new ground for dismissal had been added and that the documents raised no matter beyond the 19 grounds already relied on. He considered any failure to disclose them to be de minimis, noting that Mr Galvin had not identified what further submission he had been prevented from making.
The Commissioner’s stated grounds included disciplinary findings and District Court convictions relating to properties owned by Mr Galvin. The judge said it was for the Commissioner and the Government, with the required consent, to assess whether conduct justified dismissal on public confidence grounds. He considered the decision reasonable. The judgment also records the respondents’ submission that Mr Galvin had later been jailed for contempt arising from District Court proceedings connected to the dismissal grounds; the judge took that circumstance into account when refusing discretionary relief.
The court refused the relief sought, which included quashing the dismissal and an order for reinstatement. It did not order Mr Galvin’s return to the force.