The Court of Appeal has dismissed Catherine McGowan’s appeal against a decision allowing a Garda disciplinary inquiry to proceed, and dismissed a cross-appeal by the respondents over an amendment to her legal grounds.
The appeal concerned a Board of Inquiry established to consider alleged breaches of discipline by Ms McGowan, a Garda member. The allegations related to her handling of a complaint of sexual abuse said to have occurred in the 1980s. They included alleged failures to investigate and record the complaint, alleged failures to respond to solicitors’ correspondence, and allegations concerning statements about a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions and documents said to be false or misleading. These remain allegations; the Court of Appeal made no finding on whether any of them were established.
Ms McGowan had faced criminal charges concerning a purported photocopy of a letter from the DPP’s office. A jury found her not guilty of all charges on 12 March 2015. Garda authorities later established the disciplinary board to consider issues they regarded as outstanding from an earlier disciplinary investigation.
In the High Court, Ms McGowan had sought to prevent the inquiry, arguing that it dealt with the same issues as her criminal trial and would be unfair or oppressive. The High Court refused that relief. On appeal, her counsel accepted that several categories of allegations could go before the board, while maintaining that others should not.
The Court of Appeal said the disciplinary allegations were significantly different from the criminal charges. In particular, the disciplinary inquiry did not concern the DPP letter at the centre of the criminal proceedings. Although the matters shared a factual background, the court said that did not make them the same issues. It rejected the argument that the inquiry should be stopped and said the board should not be prevented from considering the allegations. It expressly gave no view on whether any allegation would be made out.
The court also rejected the argument that the Garda Commissioner had to give reasons for establishing the board, agreeing that notice of the allegations formed part of a fair inquiry but finding no obligation to explain why the inquiry was being established.
The respondents’ cross-appeal challenged the High Court’s decision to permit an amendment to Ms McGowan’s grounds. The Court of Appeal said it would not favour amendments as a matter of course, particularly when sought late, but concluded the trial judge had a margin of appreciation and had not exercised discretion impermissibly.
Both the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed. The disciplinary allegations were therefore left for consideration by the Board of Inquiry; the Court of Appeal did not decide their merits.