The High Court has dismissed Garda Keith Harrison’s judicial review challenge to his continued suspension and an ongoing disciplinary process, while leaving the underlying allegations for a Board of Inquiry to decide.
In a judgment delivered on 29 May 2025, Mr Justice Garrett Simons found that the Assistant Commissioners’ three-monthly decisions to renew the suspension were reasonable and rational. The court said it was open to them to consider suspension desirable given the seriousness of the allegations and the apparent strength of the evidence. It made clear that it was not deciding whether the alleged breaches occurred.
The disciplinary case alleges that Harrison began a sexual relationship with a woman after she reported an alleged domestic abuse assault to him and he took her statement. Three further allegations concern alleged contact with the woman’s former partner in connection with family law proceedings. Harrison denied all the allegations. The woman is not pursuing a criminal complaint against him.
Harrison argued that a decision made in June 2020 not to prosecute the former partner for the alleged assault was a significant change that should have been brought to his attention during suspension reviews, with an opportunity for submissions. The court rejected that argument. It said the alleged professional duty of care related to the woman’s circumstances when she reported the alleged crime, and did not necessarily depend on a later prosecution. The decision not to prosecute therefore did not trigger a requirement for specific submissions about the suspension.
The court also rejected a challenge to the Board of Inquiry’s proposed procedure for a hearing that began in November 2023. The proposal was for the presenting officer to read the woman’s written statements into the record before she gave oral evidence and was questioned. The judge called this unusual but said it could not be deemed inherently unfair in advance. Because the hearing had not concluded, it was not yet possible to assess how the evidence would unfold or whether Harrison’s right to challenge and test it would be respected. That part of the judicial review was dismissed as premature.
A separate statement by the woman, made in April 2021, said she did not wish Harrison to be prosecuted for alleged coercive control. The court held that its existence and late disclosure did not invalidate the disciplinary process. Criminal and disciplinary proceedings serve different purposes, and disciplinary action does not require a related criminal prosecution.
The judicial review application was dismissed in its entirety. The court listed the case for 19 June 2025 to hear Harrison’s submissions on why the usual costs order in favour of the successful respondent should not apply. The judgment does not state that a final costs order was made.