The High Court has refused a challenge by probationer Garda John Mulligan to his continuing suspension and an ongoing disciplinary process arising from events alleged to have occurred while he was off duty in August 2020.
Mulligan joined An Garda Síochána as a probationer in November 2019 and was posted to Buncrana Garda Station. He was suspended on August 24, 2020 after an allegation concerning sexual activity with a woman identified as Ms XY. He also admitted in a cautioned interview that he had driven after drinking alcohol. The court made no finding on the underlying allegations.
GSOC initially investigated potential criminal offences. In April 2022, the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that there would be no prosecution over the rape allegation. GSOC then began a separate disciplinary investigation into potential discreditable conduct. A November 2022 report recommended disciplinary proceedings concerning the circumstances of the sexual activity and alleged drink-driving.
A Board of Inquiry was established in June 2023. By August 2024 it had dealt with preliminary objections and scheduled three further hearing days with six witnesses. Those proceedings were paused after Mulligan began this judicial review case.
Mr Justice Conleth Bradley rejected Mulligan’s argument that GSOC acted outside its legal powers by moving from a criminal investigation to a disciplinary one. The Garda Síochána Act expressly permits a disciplinary investigation after a criminal process has ended without prosecution.
The court also rejected a challenge to the Board’s use of a liaison officer.
On suspension, Bradley J. held that the notices issued every three months had evolved to reflect changes in the case, including the DPP decision and later establishment of the disciplinary Board. Mulligan had been kept informed and had participated through his solicitor.
Although suspension paused his probationary period, the court found no individual prejudice to his ability to defend the disciplinary charges and no unlawful delay. The judicial review relief was therefore refused. Costs were left for a later hearing.