A GARDA has lost his Supreme Court bid to halt disciplinary proceedings alleging discreditable and insensitive conduct by him in his role as liaison officer with the family of murdered teenager Raonaid Murray.
The proceedings arose from allegations by the Murray family that Garda Ian Gillen had, about six weeks after the murder in September 1999, driven the dead girl’s sister, Sarah, her cousin and one of Sarah’s friends, home from a nightclub at a time when he had consumed a number of pints of beer.
They also alleged that he urinated on a tree near the scene of the killing.
Garda Gillen (50), Kill O’The Grange Garda station, who denied the claims, was subject to internal disciplinary proceedings initiated after the Garda Complaints Board deemed a complaint from the Murray family about his behaviour inadmissible due to its not being made within six months of the date of the alleged incident.
He brought a High Court challenge in 2005 to stop the disciplinary process on grounds of delay but it rejected his action, after which he appealed to the Supreme Court.
By a two-to-one majority this week, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal.
Mr Justice Joseph Finnegan and Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell both rejected Garda Gillen’s appeal while Mr Justice William McKechnie, in a dissenting judgment, allowed it.
In his judgment, Mr Justice Finnegan said he was satisfied it was not the intention of the Garda regulations that a failure to proceed with expedition would necessarily result in a disciplinary action becoming void.
After making a verbal complaint in the immediate aftermath of the alleged incident involving Garda Gillen, Ms Murray’s parents expressly reserved their right to make a formal complaint, intending to do so once the murder had been solved, the judge said.
While the murder was never solved, they made the complaint in November 2002.
The period of investigation immediately following the murder must have been traumatic for the family and the alleged conduct of Garda Gillen clearly added to that, the judge said.
A complaint under the Garda Complaints Board procedure takes precedence over Garda regulations and, in deference to the parents and so not to cause them any more distress, it was decided their complaint to the board should proceed first, he said.
The delay in bringing the disciplinary proceedings had not resulted in prejudice to Garda Gillen.
Any hardship caused to him, which may result in an inability to advance his career, was an unavoidable consequence of the complaint and the court had to balance the public interest against any prejudice to the officer, the judge added.
* In yesterday's Irish Times, under the headline "Garda wins order over disciplinary proceedings", we carried a report of the Supreme Court minority judgement of Mr Justice William McKechnie which was erroneously reflected as a decision by the Supreme Court upholding Garda Gillen's appeal. He in fact lost his appeal.