The High Court has quashed a Garda Commissioner’s decision requiring a garda to resign as an alternative to dismissal over four disciplinary breaches, finding that the garda’s solicitor had established a legitimate expectation about the outcome of the disciplinary process.
Mr Justice Moriarty ordered that the sanction decision be remitted to the current Commissioner for consideration of an appropriate sanction. He did not direct what sanction should be imposed. The ruling did not set aside the garda’s guilty pleas or the Board of Inquiry’s findings.
The case concerned eight disciplinary breaches. The garda pleaded guilty to all eight at a Board of Inquiry hearing in September 2013. The Board recommended temporary pay reductions totalling €22,693.23. The Commissioner later proposed requiring resignation instead of dismissal for breaches 3, 4, 7 and 8, and imposed pay reductions for the other four. The judgment gives inconsistent dates for the Commissioner’s final decision on the resignation sanction; it describes it as 31 January 2014 in one passage and 31 January 2013 in another.
The central dispute was what was said in private discussions between the garda’s solicitor, Mr Murphy, and Superintendent Flavin, a Board member, before the pleas were entered. Mr Murphy said the pleas were given after he understood that a monetary sanction was guaranteed “from the top”. Superintendent Flavin denied negotiating an agreement binding the Commissioner, and said the discussions concerned the Board’s own approach to sanctions. The Board chair, Ms Cronin, said the Board had considered financial sanctions and that there had been no consultation with the Commissioner’s office.
After considering the affidavits and cross-examination, the judge found Mr Murphy’s account more persuasive. He concluded that the discussions extended beyond what the Board might do and encompassed possible intervention by the Commissioner. The judge said such private plea discussions with a Board member acting in a quasi-judicial role required caution.
The Commissioner argued that the more serious sanction was within his statutory powers, that the garda had admitted the breaches with legal advice, and that an appeal was available. The judge rejected the argument that lodging a precautionary appeal prevented the judicial review from proceeding. He held that the facts established the elements of a legitimate-expectation claim. Although he also noted concerns about the lack of reasons for the increased sanction, he treated legitimate expectation as the central ground for relief.
The court quashed the Commissioner’s decision substituting the sterner sanction and remitted the matter for the current Commissioner to consider an appropriate sanction in light of what had happened. The judge said he would hear counsel on any outstanding matters.