Garda wins case against tribunal

A GARDA sergeant yesterday won a High Court challenge to the setting up of a Garda tribunal of inquiry and its decision concerning…

A GARDA sergeant yesterday won a High Court challenge to the setting up of a Garda tribunal of inquiry and its decision concerning alleged breaches of discipline by him.

Sgt Michael Hughes (55), Pearse Street Station, Dublin, sought to have quashed a decision of the disciplinary inquiry in October, 1994, which found him guilty of two breaches of regulations. He was fined £150 on each of the breaches and transferred from the Special Detective Unit, Harcourt Square, Dublin, to ordinary duties at Pearse Street.

In a reserved judgment, Mr Justice McCracken said the setting up of the tribunal of inquiry and its decision were beyond the power of the authorities. He would hear submissions as to the form of order he should make.

Sgt Hughes alleged the procedures were a breach of his rights under the Garda Discipline Regulations, 1989. He claimed a second charge was added at the inquiry and that he had only addressed the first charge.

READ MORE

The garda authorities denied the claims, stating that natural justice was observed. At the time, it was submitted, notice was given of all allegations.

The first alleged breach was for disobedience of an order that, following receipt of intelligence alleging certain intentions towards a Garda X by an unlawful organisation, Sgt Hughes informed Garda X on two occasions in September and October, 1993, contrary to procedures.

The second alleged breach was that he wilfully disobeyed an order, following receipt of intelligence of allegations of certain intentions towards Garda X by an unlawful organisation, to disclose to Chief Supt Patrick Sheil the identity of his informant, contrary to procedures.

Mr Justice McCracken said the Garda Siochina (Discipline) Regulations set up a two-part machinery for dealing with complaints. The first involved an investigation by an investigating officer. The second involved a hearing before a tribunal.

In the present case, there was no investigation into one of the allegations, therefore there was no report to the chief superintendent and no basis upon which the tribunal could be set up.