A garda sergeant has secured a High Court stay on disciplinary proceedings brought against him over alleged breaches of discipline four years ago.
Mr Justice Michael Peart also yesterday granted Sgt Martin Creighton leave to challenge the bringing of disciplinary proceedings.
The disciplinary procedures followed a claim by a man that he had handed in jewellery which he had found on the street to Kevin Street Garda station in 2001 but, when he had tried to claim it two years later, it could not be traced.
In an affidavit, Sgt Creighton, who is stationed at Bray Garda station, said he was notified in July of this year that a garda inspector had been appointed to investigate alleged breaches of discipline.
The first alleged breach of discipline related to an allegation that Sgt Creighton neglected to maintain accurate records in the Kevin Street Garda station property book.
The second alleged breach related to the alleged failure to enter on Pulse (the Garda computerised records system) details of property described as nine sachets of precious stones or jewellery.
Mr Justice Peart was told the jewellery was found on the street and was handed into Kevin Street Garda station on September 19th, 2001, by Alan Harper.
In November 2003, Mr Harper had written to Kevin Street about the items handed in on September 19th, 2001, which could not be traced but which had not been reclaimed by their owner.
Mr Harper wrote to the Garda Commissioner on October 14th, 2004 complaining about the loss of property in the Garda Lost Property Office.
In his affidavit, Sgt Creighton said he made a statement to the investigating inspector in which he had said he did not receive the items alleged to have been handed into Kevin Street station.
Sgt Creighton thought this was the end of the matter and he did not expect that, more than 12 months later, an investigating officer would be appointed to investigate an alleged breach of discipline.
Sgt Creighton said the Garda authorities have known about the alleged breaches of discipline since 2003 and, because of the delay in bringing the disciplinary proceedings, he is prejudiced in relation to his defence of the allegation.
He said the matter had caused him considerable stress and he was upset that his unblemished record could be tarnished by reason of his inability to properly defend this allegation.