THREE gardai were granted an order by the High Court yesterday quashing disciplinary measures taken against them by the Garda Representative Association.
Mr Justice Kelly described the case as another chapter in the sorry and, some might think, unseemly saga of bitterness and dissent which had afflicted the representation of rank-and-file members of the Garda force for the last few years.
Having given his decision, the judge said he could only hope that developments elsewhere would bring an end to the unhappy situation which had obtained concerning the GRA over the last number of years.
He added: "It is time for attention to be returned to providing an effective representation for the legitimate rights and concerns of the general body of police officers, rather than having it deflected towards a continuation of internecine strife."
The proceedings against the GRA and a number of its members were brought by gardai Patrick Bane, Donal O Gallachoir and Frank Gunne.
In 1994 a GRA standing committee decided that they should be expelled from the association for varying periods following an earlier High Court case and moves to set up the Garda Federation.
Mr Justice Kelly, in his reserved judgment, said the committee which decided the fate of the applicants had present on it a number of the respondents who had been called as witnesses for the GRA in the earlier High Court proceedings and given evidence which clearly controverted that given by the applicants.
Yet it was those very persons who were called upon to adjudicate on charges levelled against the applicants.
A reasonable person would legitimately apprehend that the applicants' chance of a fair and independent hearing of the charges was significantly impaired or, to use the language of former Chief Justice Finlay in a previous case, did not exist by reason of the presence as adjudicators of the witnesses who had in effect given evidence against them in the earlier trial.
Mr Justice Kelly held that the applicants had made out a case which satisfied him that the hearings in each of their eases were infirm by reason of perceived bias. There was not, in his view, any necessity for members of the central executive committee who had given evidence in the original proceedings to sit on the standing committee on the occasion. It could have been constituted by persons other than those who had given evidence in the earlier proceedings. He did not know why such was not done.
It was clear there had been much bitterness and distrust between the parties to the litigation. Even when the case concluded before him last month, it was apparent little or no improvement in attitude had occurred.
This was notwithstanding an earlier adjournment to see if an accommodation could be reached between them, having regard to developments taking place on the whole topic of Garda representation.
Given the very fraught atmosphere existing between the parties, it appeared the respondents should have been particularly concerned to ensure the standing committee constituted to adjudicate one the charges was independent, fair and be seen to be so. In his (the judge's) view, the inclusion on it of persons who had given evidence against the applicants in the earlier litigation meant that standard was not achieved.
Mr Justice Kelly said that in the circumstances it was undesirable that the standing committee should have instigated charges to be adjudicated on by itself.
He would make an order quashing the determinations of the standing committee. The charges would not be remitted to it for further consideration.