Baynham v Commissioner of an Garda Siochana and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: Court of Appeal (Ireland)
• Judge: Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore
• Judgment Date: 26 September 2025
• Neutral Citation: [2025] IECA 194
• Docket Number: Court of Appeal Record Number: 2024/47

Between/

Paul Baynham

Applicant/Appellant

and

Commissioner of an Garda Síochána, Minister for Justice, Ireland and the Attorney General

Respondents/Respondents

[2025] IECA 194

Faherty J.

Meenan J.

O'Moore J.

Court of Appeal Record Number: 2024/47

High Court Record Number: 2023/352 J.R.

THE COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL

Suspension from duty – Declaratory relief – Reasons – Appellant appealing against the trial judge's refusal to grant him reliefs – Whether the trial judge erred in failing to find that the reasons tendered were inadequate

Facts: The appellant, Garda Baynham, a member of An Garda Síochána, was suspended from duty pursuant to Reg. 7 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007 on 7 November 2020. The High Court (Phelan J), in a judgment delivered on 20 December 2023, in the main dismissed the claims made by Garda Baynham, but granted a declaration that: “The Applicant is entitled to be furnished with sufficient information to enable him to be satisfied as to the factors weighed in the decision to further suspend him thereby enabling him to make appropriate representation and/or challenge the suspension decision as appropriate”. Garda Baynham appealed to the Court of Appeal against the refusal of the trial judge to grant him any reliefs (apart from the above declaration). The respondents cross-appealed for an order setting aside that declaration.

O'Moore J structured his judgment in the following form: (1) whether Garda Baynham lacked standing; (2) whether the trial judge erred in holding that, because Garda Baynham knew the nature of the allegations against him, he must be taken to know the reasons for the decision to suspend him; (3) whether the judge erred in failing to find that the reasons tendered were inadequate; (4) whether the judge erred in failing to presume that, in the absence of disclosure by the respondents of the materials relied upon in taking decisions to suspend and review the suspension, there was no such material; (5) whether the judge erred in failing to find that Garda Baynham was treated unequally with other members also under investigation for similar allegations and erred in drawing an “inference” that the allegations against Garda Baynham were more serious or greater in number than those against other members; (6) whether the judge erred in finding that some parts of Garda Baynham’s case were out of time; (7) whether the judge erred in granting declaratory relief in favour of Garda Baynham; and (8) whether the judge correctly addressed the issue of costs.

O'Moore J held that the fact that the reasons for suspension presented by the first respondent, the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, did not include any form of analysis may justify the grant of some of the reliefs sought in the proceedings. He held that the appeal would be listed on 8 October 2025 at 9.30 am to decide whether that specific aspect of the reasons element of the case should be sent back to the High Court, determined by the Court of Appeal, or resolved in a different way. With the exception of that aspect of the reasons issue, he dismissed the appeal and the cross-appeal.

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed.

NO REDACTION NEEDED

UNAPPROVED

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Brian O'Moore delivered on the 26 ^th day of September, 2025

1 . The appellant, Garda Baynham, is a member of An Garda Síochána. On the 7 ^th November 2020, he was suspended from duty pursuant to Regulation 7 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007, as amended. The Suspension Notice was signed by Assistant Commissioner, Patrick Clavin. It stated that the suspension would run (at least initially) until the 1 ^st February 2021.

2 . Importantly, the Notice contained the following statement:-

“The suspension from duty arises as a result of:

• • Alleged and inappropriate interference in the administration of processing of Fixed Charge Penalty Notices and Fixed Charge Notices between 22 ^nd December 2017 to 29 ^th September 2019.

• • Allegedly receiving a ‘gift’ as a reward for the alleged inappropriate interference in the administration and processing of a Fixed Charge Penalty Notices and Fixed Charge Notices between 22 ^nd December 2017 to 29 ^th September 2019.”

3 . Regulation 7 of the 2007 Regulations provides the following:-

“7(1) Where, in the opinion of the Commissioner, the circumstances render such a course desirable in the interests of the Garda Síochána, he or she may suspend a member from duty.

(2) A member so suspended remains suspended until the Commissioner decides that the suspension should cease.

(3) The Commissioner shall review the suspension of a member every 3 months or at such shorter intervals as he or she considers necessary, but any non-compliance with this paragraph does not of itself invalidate the suspension.”

4 . At the time these proceedings commenced (with a statement of grounds dated the 12 ^th April 2023), the suspension of Garda Baynham had been reviewed on ten different occasions. The first review was on the 1 ^st February 2021, and the last review (prior to the proceedings being instituted), was on the 1 ^st February 2023. None of those reviews resulted in the ceasing of the suspension of Garda Baynham from duty.

5 . These proceedings claim a range of reliefs. These include:-

Damages, further and other relief, and costs were also sought.

• “(i) A declaration that the continued suspension of the applicant is unlawful, and that the applicant should be reinstated to his employment on full pay and allowances and, if necessary, an injunction in similar terms.

• (i)(sic) An order of certiorari quashing the decision dated 7 ^th November 2020 to suspend the applicant, including any and all decisions to extend that suspension, including those dated 26 ^th January 2021, 23 ^rd February 2021, 29 ^th April 2021, 27 ^th July 2021, 29 ^th October 2021, 28 ^th April 2022, 27 ^th July 2022, 18 ^th October 2022 and 25 ^th January 2023.

• (ii) An order striking down section 7 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007 as ultra vires section 123 of the Garda Síochána Act 2005 (as Amended).

• (iii) If necessary, an extension of time for bringing the within proceedings.

• (iv) A stay and/or interlocutory injunction prohibiting the First Named Respondent from issuing any further suspension notices and/or suspension renewal (in connection with the matters the subject of the existing suspensions only) pending the conclusion of the within proceedings.”

6 . The judicial review application generated a surprising number of affidavits. In total, 17 affidavits were sworn. These included an affidavit by Assistant Commissioner Clavin (retired at the time that he swore his affidavit in July 2023). No notice to cross-examine deponents was served by either side.

7 . As will be seen from the statement of grounds, a range of issues were raised on behalf of Garda Baynham. These included the validity of the regulations under which he had been suspended. Thankfully, not all of these issues remain in play. Indeed, at the opening of his oral submissions, counsel for Garda Baynham commenced by saying:-

“This is a reasons case, that is what it's about.”

Concluding his oral submissions, counsel stated:-

“My client has been suspended for an exceptionally long period of time and still does not understand truly the reasons for that, for that suspension, not for the investigation.”

8 . Ultimately, the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellant were somewhat more complicated than those I have just described, but a central part of the appeal did turn on whether or not adequate and proper reasons were provided by the Garda Commissioner to Garda Baynham in respect of the latter's continuing suspension.

9 . The High Court (Phelan J.), in a judgment delivered on the 20 ^th December 2023, in the main dismissed the claims made by Garda Baynham, but granted a declaration that:-

“… The Applicant is entitled to be furnished with sufficient information to enable him to be satisfied as to the factors weighed in the decision to further suspend him thereby enabling him to make appropriate representation and/or challenge the suspension decision as appropriate …”

10 . This declaration was made contrary to the submissions made by counsel for Garda Baynham. This somewhat surprising situation arose because, as counsel for Garda Baynham explained at the hearing of the appeal (p. 12 of the Transcript):-

“Because I indicated to the Court the implications of her decision were that there should be no declaration, but that either the Commissioner should provide the material and the matter be adjourned, or that the suspension should be declared unlawful because of the failure to provide the materials.”

11 . Garda Baynham has appealed the refusal of the trial judge to grant him any reliefs (apart from the declaration to which I have just referred). The respondents have cross-appealed for an order setting aside this declaration. Notwithstanding the position taken by counsel with regard to the illogicality of the declaration, Garda Baynham resists the setting aside of the declaratory relief ordered in his favour by the High Court judge.

12 . It should be noted that, shortly after the hearing of this appeal, it came to the attention of the Court that Garda Baynham had been charged with ten counts of perverting the course of justice. The offences are alleged to have occurred between 2017 and 2019. Directions from the DPP had been sought in July 2020 in respect of two files concerning Garda Baynham; the continuing suspension of Garda Baynham while these directions were awaited loomed large in these proceedings. The Court therefore directed that the parties be asked whether or not the decision to prosecute had any relevance to the appeal. Notwithstanding this development, both parties agreed that the appeal should be decided on the basis of the arguments put before the...