STATE (SHEEHAN) v Commissioner of GARDA Síochána
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice McWillan |
| Judgment Date | 01 March 1976 |
| Neutral Citation | 1977 WJSC-HC 1367 |
| Docket Number | 320.ssd**???query???1976 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 01 March 1976 |
1977 WJSC-HC 1367
Judgment of Mr. Justice McWillan delivered the 1st day of March 1976.
On 17th January, 1974, Chief Superintendent Murphy decided as a result of an unsworn inquiry held by him that the Prosecutor was in breach of discipline within the meaning of Regulation 6 of the Garda Siochana (Discipline) Regulations,1971, on two counts of falsehood or prevarication as described at Reference No.5 in the Schedule to the said Regulations.This decision was made under Regulation 16(h).
Reference No. 5 in so far as relevant is as follows:- Falsehood or prevarication, that is to say -(a) making or the procuring the making of - (i) any oral or written statement or (ii) any entry in an official document or record which is, to the member's knowledge, false or misleading.
2) Falsehood or prevarication; that is to say that on 16th April, 1973, at Garda Technical Bureau, St. John's Road, Dublin, in support of an application for approval to use your private motor car, Reg. No. KZJ 411, on duty on 15th April, 1973, in connection with the technical examination of scene of housebreaking at premises of Board of Works, Crofton Road, Dun Laoghaire, you made a statement in an official document, to wit, Form of Identification, which was to your knowledge false in that you stated therein that your motor vehicle, Reg. No. KZJ 411, was then properly taxed.
3) This was a similar offence phrased in the same force regarding a claim for travelling expenses in connection with the same journey.
On 19th February, 1974,the Commissioner made an Order temporarily reducing the pay of the Prosecutor by £2 in respect of each breach.This was a decision as to disciplinary action under Regulation 17.
The Prosecutor appealed against the finding that he was in breach of discipline and against the decision as to disciplinary action, by way of application for a review under Regulation 20(1).
The Commissioner referred the application to an Appeal Board under Regulation 20(4).
On 9th October, 1974, the Appeal Board heard submissions.There is a conflict of evidence as to the submissions made by the Prosecutor.
It is agreed that he withdrew the appeal against the Order reducing his pay.The Appeal Board appears to have get the impression that the Prosecutor was making the point that the Board had no jurisdiction, on the correct interpretation of Regulation No. 20(4), to hear the appeal against the finding of breach of discipline at all, and they referred the matter back to the Commissioner for consideration under Regulation 16(h).
On 3rd December, 1974, a minute was furnished to the Prosecutor informing him that the Commissioner had affirmed the decision of the inquiry.
The deductions of salary were made in the weeks ending 11th March,1974, and 30th March,1974.
The Prosecutor has applied to have the decision of the Inquiry of 17th January 1974, and the decision of the Appeal Board of 9th October, 1974, sent to the Court to be quashed.
2 1.The charge of Falsehood or prevarication is bad for duplicity.
3 2.The Appeal Board failed in its duty to hear the appeal.
4 3.The Commissioner had no power to affirm the decision of the Inquiry once the matter had been referred to the Appeal Board.
5 4.The deduction of pay pending the hearing of the appeal was contrary to natural justice.
The Prosecutor...
To continue reading
Request your trial