Karen Claire Keogh (applicant) v The Commissioner of An Garda Siochana and the Minister for Justice (respondents).

Judicial Review - Termination of assignment - Whether principles of natural justice violated - Fair procedures - Allegations of breach of contract - Constitutional rights - Freedom of association - Membership of Garda Representative Association - Support of association - Whether applicant improperly deprived of its support - Power of the Minister under the Act - Garda Siochana Act 1924 (No 25), section 13 - Garda Siochana Act 1977 (No 24), section 13 - The Constitution, article 40.6(1).

The High Court (before Mr Justice Morris); judgment delivered 6 November 1997.

The categories of persons who may be represented by the Garda Representative Association are limited by the 1997 Act and the purposes for which persons in those categories may be represented are also limited. The Minister for Justice does not have the power to extend the categories to enable the association to represent persons who are not members of An Garda Siochana. The High Court so held in refusing the relief sought by the applicant, saying that her constitutional right to freedom of association was not violated.

Michael Forde SC and Alan Toal BL for the applicant; Aindreas O'Caoimh SC and Robert Barron BL for the respondents.

MR JUSTICE MORRIS said that the matter came before the court by way of an application for judicial review of a purported decision of the first respondent to terminate the applicant's assignment as a garda trainee with effect from a date in March 1995. The applicant was given leave to seek a declaration that the purported decision of the first respondent failed to comply with the principles of natural justice and basic fairness of procedures.

The applicant sought an order of mandamus directing that she be reinstated and a declaration that she was entitled to retake part of an examination which she had failed. The applicant also sought damages for breach of contract and infringement of her constitutional rights and natural justice. Mr Justice Morris outlined the grounds on which the applicant relied. The applicant contended that the first respondent failed to inform her of the case being made against her giving rise to the decision to terminate her assignment. It was alleged that she was denied a proper hearing of her case, was not given the opportunity to call evidence in her defence and was denied the opportunity of being heard or having submissions made in her defence. Furthermore the applicant alleged that the first respondent failed to comply with the procedures contained in the Garda Siochana code of conduct.

An additional relief was added by leave of the court enabling her to seek a declaration that the prohibition against her becoming a member of the Garda Representative Association ("the GRA") while she was still a trainee garda was invalid and unconstitutional. The plaintiff was given leave to seek an order of mandamus directing the Minister for Justice to amend the regulations to permit a trainee garda to join or otherwise be associated with the GRA. Mr Justice Morris said that the grounds on which these reliefs were sought by the applicant were based on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of association provided for by Article 40.6(1) of the Constitution. At the hearing of the application counsel for the applicant indicated to the court that the claim for damages for breach of contract and infringement and violation of her constitutional rights was not being pursued as the applicant felt she had little opportunity of a successful career in An Garda Siochana due to the fact that she had found it necessary to resort to litigation. Mr Justice Morris set out the facts of the case and said that the core complaint made by the applicant was that she had been deprived of the opportunity of joining and being represented by the GRA at the time that consideration was being given to her remaining as a trainee garda. It was submitted that her right of freedom of association granted by the Constitution embraced the right of a trainee garda to associate with the GRA. However the provisions of the Garda Siochana Act 1977 which provided for the establishment of such an association denied her that right.

Mr Justice Morris considered the relevant provisions of the Garda Siochana Acts 1924 and 1977 saying that it was provided that an association or associations be established for all or one or more of the ranks of the Garda Siochana. Any such association was limited by the Act to the persons whom it could represent and the purposes for which it could represent its members. Section 13(5) of the Act of 1977 granted power to the Minister for Justice, the second respondent, to ease the prohibition contained in section 13(2) of the Act of 1977 against the association "associating with a person or body outside the Garda Siochana". Mr Justice Morris said that the section did not empower the Minister to extend the category of persons who could be represented by the association or the purposes for which the members could be represented. The court concluded that even if the categories of persons entitled to associate with the GRA could be extended, the GRA could not represent such persons in relation to their welfare or efficiency. Section 13(1) of the 1977 Act provided that the GRA could only represent members of the Garda Siochana in relation to those matters. Mr Justice Morris concluded that as the applicant was not and never was a member of the Garda Siochana she could not be represented by the GRA. It was incorrect to say that the Minister had power to extend the categories of persons whose welfare and efficiency could be represented by the GRA. Accordingly the claims based on the Minister's failure to extend the categories also failed.

Mr Justice Morris refused the reliefs sought.

Solicitors: Patrick J. Farrell & Co (Newbridge) for the applicant; Chief State Solicitor for the respondents.