THREE gardai began a High Court action against the Garda Representative Association yesterday.
They are seeking to quash a decision by the association that they were guilty of acting prejudicially to the interests of the association and its members.
Garda Patrick Bane, Garda Frank Gunn and Garda Donal O'Gallachoir are taking the action against the GRA and certain members.
Mr Adrian Hardjman SC, for the three gardai, said the background to the case was related to the difficulties which eventually led to the formation of the Garda Federation.
He said the cases of the three were substantially the same and he would present Garda Bane's case to the court. All three sought to quash the decision of a disciplinary committee of the GRA.
The committee took decisions at different stages between June and September 1994 about the three gardai. Garda Bane was charged with giving false evidence to the High Court during proceedings regarding a ballot of GRA members on pensionability of allowances.
He was also found guilty by the committee of instigating court proceedings unnecessarily as he had acted beyond the mandate given to him by his divisional members.
The charges also included that he jeopardised the GRA funds by instigating court proceedings and, when he was suspended from holding office in the GRA, he attended an unofficial meeting on July 20th, 1994, for the purpose of setting up a breakaway association known as the Garda Federation.
He was also found guilty of acting prejudicially to the interests of the GRA by failing to support the vote of the Central Executive Committee in failing to speak on motions at his open divisional meeting and render his support to the deputy general secretary and treasurer.
He was also charged that while he was suspended from holding at the annual delegate conference of 1994, he acted in a manner unbecoming a member of the GRA in that he had an open public confrontation with the chairman of the conference arrangements committee, Mr Donal Flannery, which was subsequently shown on television.
Another charge was that he was actively taking part in the formation and promotion of the breakaway association, having been named as secretary of the Garda Federation to the detriment of the association, while still a member.
In an affidavit, Garda Bane said he denied the allegations against him, as did the other two gardai. He said in September 1994 the committee found that all charges were proven and he was barred from holding membership of the GRA.
Mr Hardiman said that this was a case of procedures. A very clear case of bias existed. There were grounds to believe that the gardai did not receive an impartial hearing from the committee.
Three people who gave evidence against the three at the previous High Court hearing on the ballot, and whose evidence was relied upon, then adjudicated on the allegations against the three gardai.
They claim that the decision of the GRA and of Gardai Paul Browne, Michael Kirby, P.J. Kelly and Kieran McDermott was not within the powers of the CJRA; and that, in finding them guilty of giving false evidence to the court, the association was purporting to try them on a criminal charge.
The defence states that the proceedings were not relevant as the three gardai were no longer members of the GRA; the court has no jurisdiction to review the decision; the applicant chose to ignore the GRA rather than attend meetings held at the time complaints were considered; and he failed to utilise procedures.
It also states that Garda Bane no longer wished to be a member of the GRA and was a member off the Garda Federation. A decision of the court, therefore, would amount to a moot point.
In an affidavit, Garda Paul Browne, GRA, said that the applicant as a member was obliged to come to meetings. He had a right to appeal but failed to do so,
Garda Browne said he would query the intent of the applicant to bring the proceedings as he had no desire to hold office or be a member of the GRA. He said the present proceedings were inconsistent with Garda Bane's position as an officer of the Garda Federation and he queried the reason he took the case.
The case continues before Mr Justice Kelly today.