This case involved an application for judicial review of the first respondents establishment of a board of inquiry to investigate alleged disciplinary breaches of the applicant. The applicant was investigated for alleged breaches of discipline following her failure to investigate a sexual abuse complaint by a member of the public. The applicant was put on notice that there appeared to have been an alleged breach of discipline and that a force member had been appointed to investigate same.

The applicant had been provided with brief details of the conduct alleged which included the provision of misleading information to a number of concerned parties re the status of the investigation, her presentation of a statement from another Garda whose authenticity was in question, her failure to record a matter on the Garda pulse system, her failure to attend to legal correspondence and her failure to properly keep clerical audits.

The applicant had been subjected to a criminal investigation regarding related charges namely making and using false instruments contrary to statute but was acquitted of same. Following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings her disciplinary file was reviewed fully. After this review it was agreed that the matters to be presented to the board of inquiry were different to the issues addressed in the criminal trial.

A board of inquiry was established to determine if the applicant had committed a breach and to recommend the disciplinary action to be taken on foot of same. The applicant alleged that the disciplinary inquiry was based on the same subject matter as her criminal trial. This allegation was formed on the basis that the book of evidence served on her, for the criminal trial, had reflected the issues of performance and her alleged failure to investigate. She claimed that these issues were considered in the criminal trial and it would be unfair and a breach of regulation 8(2) to also put her through a disciplinary inquiry. The applicant also argued that reasons should have been advanced to her as to why regulation 8(2) was not implemented in her favour i.e. preventing disciplinary proceedings being commenced.

The Court held that there were many allegations of neglect and discreditable conduct against the applicant that could never be subject to a criminal allegation. The Court stated that once the member, subject to the disciplinary allegations, knows exactly what has been alleged then it is not necessary for detailed reasons to be given as to why a decision was made to proceed. The Court indicated that it was satisfied that there was no issue of double jeopardy in the matter as the serious disciplinary allegations went much wider than the focus of the criminal trial. The Court agreed that regulation 8(2) did not apply and concluded that the first respondent did not need to explain why this was. Accordingly, the Court refused the reliefs sought by the applicant.
http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/c48fc3cf2f39508880258275003903cd?OpenDocument