Griffin v Commissioner of an Garda Siochána and Others; Deegan v Commissioner of an Garda Siochána and Others; Shanahan v Commissioner of an Garda Siochána and Others

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins
• Judgment Date: 12 May 2026
• Neutral Citation: [2026] IEHC 330
• Docket Number: [Record No. 2024/321 JR] [Record No. 2024/320 JR]

Between

Alan Griffin

Applicant

and

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, Minister for Justice, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

Between

Niall Deegan

Applicant

and

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, Minister for Justice, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

Between

John Shanahan

Applicant

and

Commissioner of An Garda Síochána, Minister for Justice, Ireland and The Attorney General

Respondents

[2026] IEHC 330

[Record No. 2024/321 JR]

[Record No. 2024/336 JR]

[Record No. 2024/320 JR]

THE HIGH COURT

Judicial review – Plenary proceedings – Cross-examination – Applicants seeking to have their judicial review proceedings converted to plenary proceedings – Whether orders should be made permitting cross-examination of the respondents’ deponents

Facts: The applicants, Garda Griffin, Garda Deegan and Garda Shanahan, were members of the gardaí who had been suspended from duty and were challenging their suspensions. Each applicant was suspended in similar circumstances in November 2020 on foot of allegations relating to the “squaring” away of penalty points notices. The main grounds on which the suspensions were challenged were the following: (a) the respondent, the Commissioner of An Garda Siochána (the Commissioner), breached fair procedures in failing to provide the applicants with copies of the material on which the Commissioner relied in periodically extending their suspensions; (b) the suspensions were vitiated by delay, and it could not be fair to continue the suspensions; (c) the individual suspension notices did not contain sufficient reasons for their imposition; (d) the applicants had been treated unequally to other members who were in a similar position and had therefore been unfairly targeted. The applicants in each of the three cases had brought separate motions seeking to have their judicial review proceedings converted to plenary proceedings; or in the alternative, to have orders made permitting cross-examination of the respondents’ deponents; or further or in the alternative, to have orders made striking out parts of the respondents’ affidavits.

Held by O’Higgins J that he was not satisfied that the applicants had identified a sufficient basis for converting the proceedings to plenary proceedings; such concerns as had been advanced could be addressed in the context of the other two motions. On the particular facts arising, and by analogy with the decision of O’Donovan J in Director of Corporate Enforcement v Seymour [2006] IEHC 369, O’Higgins J was persuaded that the interests of justice warranted granting liberty to the applicants to cross-examine C/S Gunne on the discrete issues referenced in her affidavits. O’Higgins J found that it was not necessary for the applicants to cross-examine D/I Watters. O’Higgins J was satisfied that the applicants were entitled to cross-examine Supt. Kennedy on a material issue. O’Higgins J permitted a focused cross-examination of D/S Madden. O’Higgins J permitted a focused cross-examination of C/S McNulty on discrete issues.

O’Higgins J found that it was not necessary to spend too much time on the motion pursuant to Order 40, r. 16 RSC seeking to strike out, or deem inadmissible, parts of the affidavits of C/S Gunne and D/I Watters for the following reasons: first, the hearsay complaint had largely fallen out of the case; second, while the court had found that aspects of the respondents’ affidavits contained argumentative material and impermissibly included legal argument, the same criticism could be levied at some of the applicants’ own affidavits; with respect to any aspect of the affidavits in the substantive proceedings, it would be a matter for the trial judge to decide what weight, if any, to give to any individual piece of evidence in the case.

Application for orders permitting cross-examination granted.

Appearances:

For the applicants: Mark Harty SC and James Kane BL instructed by Hughes Murphy Solicitors

For the respondents: Conor Power SC and Nathan Reilly BL instructed by the Chief State Solicitor's Office

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Micheál O'Higgins delivered on the 12 ^th day of May 2026

Introduction

1 . The applicants in each of these three cases have brought separate motions seeking to have their judicial review proceedings converted to plenary proceedings; or in the alternative, to have orders made permitting cross-examination of the respondents' deponents; or further or in the alternative, to have orders made striking out parts of the respondents' affidavits.

2 . The applicants are members of the gardaí who have been suspended from duty and are now challenging their suspensions. Each applicant was suspended in similar circumstances in November 2020 on foot of allegations relating to the “squaring” away of penalty points notices. The suspensions have been reviewed and extended every three months since their imposition in November 2020.

3 . Separate pleadings and affidavits have been delivered in each of the three cases. However, the issues and material facts in each case are largely identical. Accordingly, for ease of reference, save where otherwise indicated, I propose to focus solely on the affidavits sworn in the case of Alan Griffin. It is intended, however, that this judgment will also govern the cases brought by John Shanahan and Niall Deegan.

4 . According to the respondents' affidavits, the suspension of each applicant arose from evidence obtained in a criminal investigation called Operation Modulus. This followed on from another criminal investigation called Operation Bath. These investigations centred around allegations of perverting the course of justice by serving members and retired members of the gardaí, and by members of the public. The investigations related, in particular, to a practice whereby fixed charge penalty notices were either not written up, not prosecuted in court or were cancelled on the system.

5 . In the case of Garda Griffin and Garda Shanahan, in August 2024 the Director of Public Prosecutions directed that there should be no criminal prosecution. A prosecution was however directed in the case of Garda Deegan.

6 . Recently, there have been developments in the underlying criminal cases which, for completeness, I will mention. These developments may or may not have a bearing on the continued suspension of the applicants, and include the following:

These developments post-date the swearing of the affidavits and indeed the hearing of the three applications before me. For the avoidance of doubt, I have not taken these recent developments into account in this judgment because they have not been formally confirmed or contextualised on affidavit. Nor have the parties had an opportunity to address the court on their significance. Therefore, I am mentioning these developments only for completeness.

• (a) On 26 ^th January 2026, retired superintendent Eamonn O'Neill and four other serving gardaí who were accused of “squaring away” pending or potential road traffic prosecutions were acquitted before Limerick Circuit Court by a jury on all 39 counts after a trial lasting some nine weeks.

• (b) On 25 ^th March 2026, all criminal charges against three other Limerick-based gardaí, including one of the present applicants, Garda Niall Deegan, were withdrawn when the DPP entered a nolle prosequi in each case.

7 . The main grounds on which the suspensions are challenged are the following:

• (a) The Commissioner breached fair procedures in failing to provide the applicants with copies of the material on which the Commissioner relies in periodically extending their suspensions. The applicants require the materials for the purpose of making fully-informed submissions as to why their suspensions should be lifted.

• (b) The suspensions are vitiated by delay, and it cannot be fair to continue the suspensions.

• (c) The individual suspension notices do not contain sufficient reasons for their imposition.

• (d) The applicants have been treated unequally to other members who are in a similar position and have therefore been unfairly targeted.

Grounding affidavit of Elizabeth Hughes

8 . The three motions are grounded on an affidavit of Elizabeth Hughes, solicitor in Hughes Murphy Solicitors on Wellington Quay in Dublin. It is not necessary to reproduce the entirety of Ms. Hughes' affidavit. It suffices to refer to the following paragraphs. At para. 6, Ms. Hughes states that there are certain aspects of the proceedings which necessitate the attendance of Chief Superintendent Catharina Gunne (C/S Gunne) and Detective Inspector Mark Watters (D/I Watters) at trial for the purpose of cross-examination. C/S Gunne swore an affidavit on behalf of the respondents on 28 ^th February 2025. The applicant, Alan Griffin, filed an affidavit wherein he disputes the entirety of the evidence of C/S Gunne.

9 . At para. 8, Ms. Hughes states that, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, the following specific aspects of the evidence of C/S Gunne are in dispute and are material to the disposition of the within proceedings:

• (i) That C/S Gunne is familiar with the applicant's file;

• (ii) That C/S Gunne is familiar with the other investigation files;

• (iii) That C/S Gunne is familiar with the case of 94 members of An Garda Síochána who currently stand suspended;

• (iv) That it is necessary for the applicants to remain suspended from their duties when faced with an allegation of perverting the course of justice through their own actions;

• (v) That C/S Gunne concurs with the view expressed in the suspension notice of 29 ^th January 2025;

• (vi) That the seriousness of the issues arising means that there is no role within An Garda Síochána which could be performed by the applicants which would not betray public confidence; and

• (vii) That public confidence in An Garda Síochána may be adversely affected if the applicants were allowed to return to the force and that it would “create the...