Sheehan v Garda Síochána Complaints Tribunal & Garda Síochána Complaints Board

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Geoghegan
• Judgment Date: 28 January 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] IESC 6
• Docket Number: No. 457/2005
• Court: Supreme Court
• Date: 28 January 2009

Sheehan v Garda Síochána Complaints Tribunal & Garda Síochána Complaints Board

BETWEEN/

CIARAN SHEEHAN

Applicant/Appellant

and

THE GARDA SÍOCHÁNA COMPLAINTS TRIBUNAL AND THE GARDA SÍOCHÁNA COMPLAINTS BOARD

Respondents

[2009] IESC 6

No. 457/2005

THE SUPREME COURT

GARDA SIOCHANA

Discipline

Fair procedures - Delay - Application to quash decision of Tribunal by way of judicial review -Whether delay in establishing Tribunal depriving it of jurisdiction - Whether delay causing prejudice to applicant - Allegation of improper conduct by chief executive of Board - Whether allegation made out - Appeal dismissed (457/2005 - SC - 28/1/2009) [2009] IESC 6

Sheehan v Garda Síochána Complaints Tribunal

: The appellant was a member of An Garda Siochana and the subject to a complaint brought to the respondent. The complaint had been withdrawn and re-instated and issues arose as to intimidation. This intimidation led to the holding of an official internal Garda inquiry (“Ennis Inquiry”) which came on for hearing in advance of the Tribunal Inquiry (“Tribunal Inquiry”). The former and the latter found the appellant in breach of the charges alleged and the latter directed that he retire or resign. An appeal was taken outside of the statutory time limit and the appeal was refused. The appellant sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal. The appellant alleged delay and that the Chief Executive of the second respondent had improperly interfered with the business of the Tribunal.

Held by the Supreme Court per Geoghegan J. (Fennelly & Macken JJ. concurring), that the High Court was correct in rejecting the arguments based upon delay. The statutory procedures had been followed meticulously. There was no evidence of impropriety as alleged. The onus on the appellant had not been discharged. Even if it was appropriate to extend the time, the relief sought would be refused and the appeal would be dismissed.

Reporter: E.F.

GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S7(5)

GARDA SIOCHANA (DISCIPLINE) REGS 1989 SI 194/1989

GARDA SIOCHANA (COMPLAINTS) ACT 1986 S9(4)(b)

Mr. Justice Geoghegan

1 Judgment delivered by Geoghegan J.

2 The appellant was at all material times a member of An Garda Síochána. As a consequence of a complaint by a member of the public in relation to the appellant's behaviour to him in his capacity as a garda, a garda investigation took place with the result that the complaint was referred to the Garda Síochána Complaints Board, the second-named respondent. Before the Board had fully put in motion its procedures, the complainant withdrew his complaint. There was garda suspicion as to the genuineness of that withdrawal, or in other words, as to whether it had been brought about by intimidation by or on behalf of the appellant. Following on questioning of the appellant, there was belief within the Garda Síochána that the suspicion was well-founded and in the event, the complainant reinstated his complaint. The Board was so informed.

3 All of this led to a further internal investigation by the Garda Síochána as to whether there was or was not intimidation carried out by or at the behest of the appellant. That in turn led to the holding of an official internal garda inquiry outside of the statutory complaints procedure. This inquiry was held in Ennis and for the purposes of the proceedings has always been referred to as the"Ennis Inquiry". To the extent that the Ennis Inquiry has any relevance to the matters in issue on this appeal, I will return to it at a later stage.

4 The second-named respondent, which I will hereinafter refer to as"The Board" referred the original complaint to the Garda Síochána Complaints Tribunal, the first-named respondent, which I will hereinafter refer to as "The Tribunal", in accordance with section 7(5) of the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act, 1986. In due course, a date was fixed for a hearing by the Tribunal and I will hereinafter refer to that hearing as "The Tribunal hearing".As delay in setting up the Tribunal hearing is one of the complaints relevant to these proceedings, I will be giving details of dates etc. in due course.

5 The Ennis Inquiry came on for hearing in advance of the Tribunal inquiry. The members of that inquiry found the appellant to be in breach of four of the charges against him and recommended that the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána exercise the penalty options open to him under the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations, 1989. The Commissioner exercised the option of requiring the appellant to resign from the Force. The appellant lodged an appeal against that decision of the Commissioner. That appeal was heard on the 20^th July, 1998 and the Garda Síochána Appeals Board which heard the appeal, reduced the penalty by deciding that the appellant should be reduced to the rank of garda from his previous rank of sergeant rather than be required to resign.

6 In the meantime, the Tribunal hearing took place with only partial participation by the appellant and his solicitor because they were disputing the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to hold what they considered to be an excessively delayed hearing. The jurisdiction objection was overruled by the Tribunal and the Tribunal proceeded with the hearing. The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of all five breaches of discipline alleged and directed that he should retire or resign from An Garda Síochána within twenty one days pursuant to section 9(4)(b) of the Garda Síochána (Complaints) Act,1986. The appellant was then informed that he had twenty one days within which to appeal this decision to the Garda Síochána Appeals Board. However, by a letter of the 26^th June, 1998, the appellant's solicitor wrote to the secretary of the Tribunal informing her that he had been instructed to institute judicial review proceedings with a view to having the decision of the Tribunal quashed. No notice of appeal was served within the twenty one days. It appears, however, that following on the decision reached by the Garda Síochána Appeals Board in relation to the penalty imposed by the Commissioner upon the result of the Ennis Inquiry, the appellant decided to appeal the decision of the Tribunal in respect of which he had been intending to seek judicial review. The appeal, however, was outside the statutory time limit of twenty one days. There did not appear to be any power to extend the time but there were informal discussions about this problem with the Chief Executive of the Board and there is conflicting evidence on the affidavits before the High Court as to what exactly...