Garda granted order against his dismissal

A probationer garda who carried out protection duties at Aras an Uachtarain has been granted a High Court order preventing his…

A probationer garda who carried out protection duties at Aras an Uachtarain has been granted a High Court order preventing his dismissal pending court proceedings which challenge the Garda Commissioner's decision.

Garda Stuart McMahon (27), of Meadow Court, Clane, Co Kildare, said in an affidavit yesterday that he was informed there had been discrepancies in claims he made for subsistence allowances for being on duty at the President's home.

He wrote to the Commissioner that there had never been any deliberate commission or omission on his part and he accepted mistakes were made. Mr Justice O'Sullivan granted Garda McMahon an injunction which prevents the Commissioner dispensing with his services from today. The injunction is to continue until the determination of proceedings brought by Garda McMahon in which he seeks to quash the Commissioner's decision, or until further order. One of his duties consisted of protection work at Aras an Uachtarain. He claimed that gardai who performed such duties were entitled to claim maximum subsistence allowances if duties exceeded five hours. He did not get instructions about the method of calculating allowances. He was paid £379.86 and £618.24.

In November 1997, two Garda sergeants said there were discrepancies in his claims that he had been on duty at Aras on dates when the records showed he was not there. He had apologised, asked what he could do and said he wanted to pay back any money wrongfully claimed. On November 18th he got notice of 18 allegations. He was not warned that termination of his employment was being considered. He received documents containing statements from three sergeants which confirmed his under standing that the matter was being dealt with at station level and that the sergeants believed that past discrepancies were a mistake. The November 18th notice had not allowed him sufficient time to respond adequately to the very detailed allegations and he was not advised he was entitled to challenge the statements and reports or furnish evidence in mitigation.