Aughey v Ireland
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barrington |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1986 |
| Neutral Citation | 1985 WJSC-HC 1721 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 9053P/1984. |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 01 January 1986 |
BETWEEN:
AND
1985 WJSC-HC 1721
THE HIGH COURT
Synopsis:
CONSTITUTION
Statute
Validity - Freedom of association - Restriction - Garda Siochana - Conditions of service - Membership of trade union forbidden - Statutory associations substituted - Restriction not unconstitutional - (1984 No.9053P - Barrington J. - 29/8/85).
|Aughey v. Ireland|
GOVERNMENT
Administration
Garda Siochana - Condition of service - Freedom of association - Restriction - Validity - Membership of trade union forbidden - Statutory associations substituted - Restriction not unconstitutional - Detectives as such not being a rank within the force - Detectives adequately represented by authorised associations - Detectives opposing new system for regulation of promotions - New system supported by authorised associations - Garda Siochana Act, 1977, s.1 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, s. 40 - (1984 No. 9053P - Barrington J. - 29/8/85)
|Aughey v. Ireland|
GARDA SIOCHANA
Conditions of service
Freedom of association - Restriction - Validity - Membership of trade union forbidden - Statutory associations substituted - Restriction not unconstitutional - Detectives as such not being a rank within the force - Detectives adequately represented by authorised associations - Detectives opposing new system for regulation of promotions - New system supported by authorised associations - Garda Siochana Act, 1977, s. 1 - Constitution of Ireland, 1937, Article 40 - (1984 No. 9053P - Barrington J. - 29/8/85).
|Aughey v. Ireland|
TRADE UNION
Membership
Exclusion - Garda Siochana - Freedom of association - Restriction - Statutory association substituted - Restriction not unconstitutional - Garda Siochana Act, 1977, s. 1 - (1984 No.9053P - Barrington J. - 29/8/85).
|Aughey v. Ireland|
Citations:
CONSTITUTION ART 40.6
GARDA SIOCHANA (ASSOCIATION) REGS 1978 SI 135/1978
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1960 SI 203/1960
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1960 SI 203/1960 REG 5(1)
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1960 SI 203/1960 REG 5(2)
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1960 SI 203/1960 REG 8
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1960 SI 203/1960 REG 9
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1960 SI 203/1960 REG 10
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1960 SI 203/1960 REG 10(2)
GARDA SIOCHANA (PROMOTION) REGS 1962 SI 97/1962
GARDA SIOCHANA (RANKS) ORDER 1982 SI 348/1982
GARDA SIOCHANA ACT 1924 S13
GARDA SIOCHANA ACT 1924 S13
GARDA SIOCHANA ACT 1924 S4
GARDA SIOCHANA ACT 1977 S1
GARDA SIOCHANA ACT 1977 S1
GARDA SIOCHANA ACTS 1923–1977
INSPECTOR OF TAXES ASSOCIATION V MIN PUBLIC SERVICE UNREP MURPHY 1983/10/2838
NUR CASE 1947 IR 77
POLICE FORCES (AMALGAMATION) ACT 1925 S10
POLICE FORCES (AMALGAMATION) ACT 1925 S8
RODGERS V ITGWU UNREP FINLAY 15.03.78 1978/3
RYAN COMMITTEE PAY & CONDITIONS APRIL 1979 PARA 13
RYAN COMMITTEE PAY & CONDITIONS APRIL 1979 PARA 7/36
RYAN COMMITTEE PAY & CONDITIONS APRIL 1979 PARA 7/37
JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Barrington delivered the 29th day of August, 1985.
This case originated in a dispute concerning proposed changes in the system of promotion in the Garda Siochána. But it has raised issues concerning the powers of the Garda Commissioner and of the Minister for Justice, the rights of the Plaintiffs as members of the Garda Representative Association or the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, the rights of those associations to negotiate on behalf of the Plaintiffs and the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Garda Síochána Acts.
The Plaintiffs are all members of the Garda Síochána and are all either Detective Gardaí or Detective Sergeants. The total strength of the Garda force at the end of October 1984 was nine thousand and eighty six consisting of seven thousand six hundred and fifty six uniformed Gardaí and one thousand four hundred and thirty Detective Gardaí. That more than half of the Detectives in the force should have seen fit to join as Plaintiffs in these proceedings is an indication of considerable discontent in the Detective Branch with the proposed new system of promotion and must be a matter of concern.
In part, however, this case originated in a misunderstanding on the part of the Plaintiffs. At present the system of promotion to the ranks of Sergeant, Station Sergeant and Inspector in the Garda Síochána is governed by the Garda Síochána (Promotion) Regulations 1960 ( S.I. No. 203 of 1960), as amended by the Garda Síochána (Promotion) Regulations 1962 ( S.I. No. 97 of 1962). A new system of promotion has been under discussion for many years and has the support of the Garda Commissioner, the Garda Representative Association, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors and the Garda Conciliation Council. The Garda Conciliation Council itself comprises representatives of the Minister for Justice, the Minister for the Public Service, the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, the Garda Representative Association, the Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors, and the Representative Body for Superintendents and the Representative Body for Chief Superintendents. The proposed new system, appearing to have the support of all. relevant authorities, the practice grew up among Garda officers of referring to it as "the new system" or even "the new regulations".
I am Satisfied that a misunderstanding arising from this misuse of words led the Plaintiffs to apply for, and this Court to grant, an Interlocutory Injunction restraining the Commissioner from proceeding with certain interviews "for appointments to the rank of Detective Sergeants in crime ordinary, Dublin Metropolitan area, Portlaoise, Donegal town and Sligo town", until after the trial of this action.
Having heard the evidence, I am satisfied that the Commissioner never intended to act otherwise than in accordance with the Garda Síochána (Promotion) Regulations 1960 as amended by the Garda Siochana (Promotion) Regulations 1962 or by whatever new regulations might be substituted for them by the Minister for Justice with the approval of the Government. I am satisfied also that the "appointments" restrained by the Interlocutory Order were not in fact "promotions" within the meaning of the promotion regulations, but were appointments proposed to be made by the Commissioner pursuant to his powers under Section 8 of the Police Forces Amalgamation Act 1925for the general direction and control of the force.
To remove any doubt on this score Counsel for the Commissioner, at the conclusion of the third day of the hearing before me, gave an undertaking that the Commissioner would not purport to make any promotions from one rank to another save in accordance with the relevant promotion regulations. At the same time the Commissioner reserved his right to make appointments as to where each member of the force should serve within his rank.
The existing system of promotion to the ranks of Sergeant, Station Sergeant and Inspector in the Garda Síochána is governed by the Garda Síochána (Promotion) Regulations 1960 ( S.I. No. 203 of 1960) as amended by the Garda Síochána (Promotion) Regulations 1962 ( S.I. No. 97 of 1962).
Regulation 5 paragraph (1) of the 1960 Regulations provides that a Guard shall not be eligible for promotion to the rank of Sergeant unless he has passed, or is exempted from, certain examinations.
Regulation 5 paragraph (2) however, contains an exception. It reads as follows:-
"(2) a proportion of vacancies in the rank of Sergeant, not exceeding twenty five per cent, may be filled by the promotion of Guards who have shown special zeal and ability in the performance of their duties notwithstanding that they may not have passed Class 3 promotion examinations or the Irish proficiency test".
Promotions under Regulation 5 paragraph (2) were known as "special promotions".
Regulations 8, 9 and 10 deal with the system of promotion to the ranks of Station Sergeant and Inspector. But paragraph (2) of regulation 10 is as follows:-
"Notwithstanding paragraph 1 of this regulation, where the Commissioner is satisfied that a Sergeant, who has not passed and is not exempted from these regulations from passing the Class 1 promotion examinations or the Irish proficiency test, has given consistently meritorious service in the Detective Branch and has shown special zeal and ability in the performance of his duties, the Commissioner may, with the approval of the Minister for Justice, promote him to the rank of Inspector, but, before so promoting him, the Commissioner shall appoint a board of members of the Garda Síochána, not below the rank of Chief Superintendent, to inquire into the record of his service and efficiency and to interview him as to his general suitability, and shall consider the report of such board on such inquiry and interview".
This system of "special promotion" came to be the normal system of promotion in the Detective Branch. In the course of the present case it was referred to as the "vertical" system of promotion. It meant that a Detective could join the Detective Branch with the rank of Detective Garda and make his way up to the rank of Inspector without ever leaving the Detective Branch. The Plaintiffs clearly feel that it should be open to them to pursue their careers as Detectives in this way.
The system of "special promotions" was however very unpopular in the Garda force generally as the feeling existed that it opened the way to promotions not necessarily based on merit.
On the 2nd of November 1978 the Minister for Justice appointed a committee under the chairmanship...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Aughey v Attorney General
...by Article 40.6.1 (iii). Barrington J. dismissed their application for a declaration to that effect and other ancillary relief ([1986] ILRM 206). The plaintiffs appealed. Held by the Supreme Court (Walsh J., Henchy, Griffin, Hederman and McCarthy JJ. in dismissing the appeal, 1, the rank of......