Judgment was reserved in the High Court yesterday by Mr Justice McCracken on an application by a garda to quash her dismissal from the force.
Mr Diarmaid Fawsitt, for Ms Geraldine Anne-Marie Lohan, of Esmonde Terrace, Bray, Co Wicklow, said his client was not treated in a constitutionally fair way by a Garda board of inquiry which, after a 10-day hearing in 1994, found her guilty of 18 disciplinary charges. She was dismissed from the force by the Garda Commissioner in February 1995.
In an action against the Garda Commissioner, Ms Lohan, who joined the force in 1992, is seeking orders quashing her dismissal.
On the opening day of the proceedings, it was alleged Ms Lohan had telephoned Aras an Uachtarain in 1992 and handed in a letter to the President in which she alleged racketeering by a garda, claimed that certain children should not have been in care and feared for her own safety because of what she claimed to know about a murder case.
In an affidavit, Chief Supt Thomas Butler, now retired, said he was directed to investigate the allegations contained in a statement which he said he took from Ms Lohan in relation to a Garda station in Co Wicklow, and found there was no substance in any of them.
The court heard Ms Lohan had disputed the authenticity of the statement and had it examined by her own handwriting expert.
In closing submissions for his client yesterday, Mr Fawsitt said the board of inquiry had granted a number of adjournments of the hearing into disciplinary charges against Ms Lohan and submitted it was unfair of the board not to grant a further adjournment on November 23rd, 1994. At that time, his client felt she was within the protection of the High Court.
He said it was clear his client was under-represented at the hearing. She had cause to look for the various adjournments, which she secured, until the board decided to proceed in her absence.
There was no reason to refuse Ms Lohan's request for another adjournment. In her final letter to the board, before it proceeded in her absence, Ms Lohan had said she wanted to get legal advice.
He said the Garda could have found a solution for Ms Lohan. She was "one of their own" and was unwell on the day the hearing proceeded in her absence.
Mr Diarmaid McGuinness, for the Garda Commissioner, submitted the board had granted numerous adjournments to facilitate Ms Lohan before deciding to proceed in her absence.
On the day the board took the decision to proceed in her absence, Ms Lohan did not appear despite having been told by the High Court that the inquiry was due to resume on that date.
He said Ms Lohan's stated concern about proceedings at a District Court hearing on November 11th, 1994, was not connected with the inquiry and not a reason to adjourn it. He said Ms Lohan "clearly did not want" to attend the inquiry on November 23rd, and submitted this was because a handwriting expert, retained by her to examine a statement she had allegedly made to gardai, could not substantiate her claim that the signature on the statement was a forgery.
The court heard the inquiry opened on October 24th, 1994, and was adjourned a number of times at the request of Ms Lohan. Some of the adjournments were related to her feeling unwell and others related to her taking High Court proceedings in which she sought and succeeded in having a statement, alleged to have been made by her to gardai, examined by her own handwriting expert.
The Garda board had agreed to have the statement examined by Ms Lohan's expert provided the statement did not leave Garda custody.
After the examination of the statement, the inquiry resumed on November 23rd. Ms Lohan was absent and it adjourned to the following day, directing that in the meantime Ms Lohan should be notified it intended to then proceed in her absence.
In a letter to the board on November 24th, Ms Lohan said the decision to proceed in her absence was a breach of her constitutional rights.
The inquiry adjourned again to November 25th, and then proceeded in her absence. On November 30th, the board made its decision finding Ms Lohan guilty of the disciplinary charges.