BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

1. The Applicant was a Ban Garda who in 1994 faced a number of disciplinary charges under the Garda Siochana (Discipline) Regulations, 1989. These primarily concerned very serious allegations which she had made against other members of the Gardaí, the nature of which are not relevant to the issues I have to decide. The charges were heard at a sworn inquiry constituted under the Disciplinary Regulations, and there is no challenge to the procedures leading to the setting up of the inquiry, or indeed to the composition of the Board of Inquiry. The Inquiry commenced on 25th October, 1994. It sat spasmodically for the next four weeks, although it heard very little evidence, and was adjourned from time to time either at the Applicant's request or due to her absence. Finally, on

2. The conduct of the proceedings is set out in detail in the Affidavit of Detective Superintendent Cormac Gordon, which Affidavit also exhibits a transcript of the entire proceedings before the Board of Inquiry. The Applicant has not filed any Affidavit contesting this account of the proceedings, and I therefore assume it to be accurate.

3. Regulation 34 of the Discipline Regulations provides:-

4. The decision to continue the Inquiry in the absence of the Applicant was expressly made by reference to this Regulation, and the transcript for 24th November records that the three members of the Board of Inquiry unanimously agreed that it was reasonable to continue the proceedings in her absence.

5. The Inquiry sat in all on eleven separate days, although it did not hear evidence on a number of those days. I think it is simplest to set out the history of the events in relation to each of these sittings.

6. The Inquiry commenced on this day, in the presence of the Applicant. It considered three of the lesser charges against the Applicant, which were the subject matter of a separate disciplinary investigation from the rest of the complaints, and the Applicant was found guilty of breaches of discipline in relation to two of the three charges.

7. The Board of Inquiry then went on to consider the remaining charges against the Applicant. Some of these charges related to allegations made by her in a statement which the Applicant made to Superintendent Butler on

8. When the Board of Inquiry sat the Applicant intimated that she wanted to make inquiries as to the possibility of having her signature on the statement analysed by an independent person. She asked for an adjournment until lunch time, but was in fact only granted an adjournment for thirty minutes. The Board of Inquiry then continued to hear evidence in relation to the charges against her. At the end of the day's hearing the Applicant again denied that the signature on the statement was hers.

9. The Applicant sought an adjournment of the Inquiry to enable her to have her signature on the statement analysed. The Board of Inquiry agreed to adjourn and to allow the Applicant to have the statement inspected by a handwriting expert at Garda Headquarters. The Applicant requested that the original statement be given to her, and when the Board ruled that she could only inspect it at Garda Headquarters, she stated that she intended to make an application to the High Court. The Board adjourned the Inquiry until

10. The Applicant did not appear on this occasion. A telephone call was received at Fitzgibbon Street Garda Station, where the Inquiry was being held, by somebody claiming to be speaking on behalf of the Applicant and that she would be there as soon as possible. The Board sat several times during the day, but the Applicant did not appear. No evidence was heard by the Board.

11. The Board sat and a faxed message addressed to the Chairman of the Inquiry from the Applicant was read out. It stated that the Applicant was ill, and the Inquiry was adjourned until the next day.

12. The Applicant again did not appear, and after some inquiries were made it was established that the Applicant had made an application in the High Court which had been adjourned until 7th November. Accordingly, the Board of Inquiry adjourned until 8th November.

13. As the Applicant's application to the High Court was adjourned for hearing on 14th November, it was decided to adjourn the Inquiry until 17th November.

14. The Applicant's case before the High Court had been heard on 14th November, and the Court ordered that the Applicant was to have facilities to examine the statement with her expert before 5.00 o'clock on 18th November. This was in fact the facility which had already been offered by the Board of Inquiry. The Court also informed the Applicant that the Inquiry would not resume until 23rd November to enable the inspection to take place and advice to be given to her. She was also told by Inspector Cummins outside the Court that the Inquiry would resume at 10.00 a.m. on 23rd November. When the Inquiry did resume, the Applicant did not appear, but the Chairman of the Inquiry received a faxed message at about 10.30 from the Applicant stating that she was going back to the High Court because of certain events which occurred at Bray District Court on 18th November where she had been a witness in a case. The faxed message also stated that she had not appeared personally to apply for the adjournment because a minor who was staying with her was in hospital and about to be discharged. The Board of Inquiry decided to adjourn until the following day at 10.00 a.m., and the Chairman stated that the Applicant was to be directed to be present, and that she should be notified that, if she was not present, the Inquiry would continue in her absence.

15. The Board of Inquiry again sat, and the Applicant was not present. Inspector Cummins gave evidence that he had spoken to the Applicant the previous afternoon and directed her to attend, and left her in no doubt that it was the intention of the Board to proceed with the Inquiry on 24th November. She told Inspector Cummins that it was her intention to go back to the High Court to have the Inquiry stopped and to seek a Judicial Review. That morning the Applicant sent a faxed message to the Chairman of the Inquiry confirming that she had been told that the Inquiry would resume on 24th November even if she were not there. She complained that this was a breach of her constitutional rights and was illegal. She again complained of events which had taken place the previous Friday in Bray District Court. She said she would be going to the High Court with a view to making an application to stop the Inquiry. In the course of the message she also stated that she was very happy with the report by the handwriting expert on her statement. The Board of Inquiry then decided to continue in the absence of the Applicant, and inter alia it heard evidence from a Sergeant Lynch as to the examination of the Applicant's statement both by him and by the Applicant's expert. Sergeant Lynch confirmed that, in his view, the signature on the statement was that of the Applicant. It should also be said that the expert advice which the Applicant received from Mr. James Nash was that he noted no apparent evidence of forgery. In an addendum to her letter sent to the Chairman of the Board the Applicant also said:-

16. After the fax had been read out, the Board adjourned to consider what action it would take, and then ruled as follows:-

17. The Applicant again did not appear and it was confirmed to the Board of Inquiry that no sick certificate or any other communication had been received from her. It also appeared that no application had been made to the High Court. Accordingly, the Board of Inquiry found the Applicant guilty of a number of the disciplinary charges against her.

18. Under Regulation 34 of the Garda Siochana (Discipline) Regulations, 1989 it is quite clear that a Board of Inquiry may proceed in the absence of the member whose conduct is being inquired into if the Board is satisfied that this is reasonable in all the circumstances. The Board expressed themselves to be so satisfied, but, of course, I am entitled to consider whether that decision was so irrational or unreasonable that no Board of Inquiry could reasonably have reached it. I am also entitled to look at the procedures in general, as there is no doubt that a Board of Inquiry such as this must not only comply with its own internal regulations, but must also comply with the principles of natural and constitutional justice.

19. The Applicant relied strongly on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in O'Callaghan -v- District Judge Clifford (1993) 3 I.R. 603. This was a case in which the Applicant had been charged with a Revenue offence, in which the Revenue were entitled to give prima facie evidence by way of certificate. At the hearing before the District Judge, Counsel for the Applicant applied for an adjournment on the basis that the Applicant was not present but would be in the Court by about 4.30, and that he, Counsel, wished to take instructions from his client. Denham J. said at page 611:-

20. It should be emphasised that the decision in that case was dependant on the six factors set out in the Judgment. In Rock -v- Governor of St. Patrick's Institution (Supreme Court 22nd March, 1993, unreported) O'Flaherty J. dealt with a case where the Applicant did not appear at the hearing of the District Court, and said at page 8 of the Judgment:-

21. Finally, I would refer to a decision of Murphy J. in a case of Lawlor -v- Hogan (1993) I.L.R.M. 606. This again was a case in which the Accused did not appear at his trial. At page 610 the learned Judge said:-

22. There are several factors in this case which distinguish it from any of the cases cited before me. Firstly, the Applicant consciously decided that she would not appear before the Tribunal on the date which had been fixed in the High Court for its resumption. She also decided not to appear on the two following days. She did not make any application for an adjournment as such, but indicated that she was going to apply to the High Court to stop the Inquiry, which she did not in fact do.

23. I am also satisfied that, prior to 23rd November, the Board of Inquiry had done everything possible to assist the Applicant, particularly in relation to her challenge to the statement she had made. They not only adjourned to allow her to apply to Court, but they also allowed her short adjournments on a number of occasions to consider her position. When she did not appear on 23rd November, they again adjourned and warned her that if she did not appear the following day, the Inquiry would continue in her absence. Nevertheless, she chose not to appear.

24. I am also influenced by the fact that, somewhat astonishingly, the Applicant has not filed an Affidavit to support this application. The only evidence on her behalf is the evidence of Thomas Joseph Colgan dated 13th November, 1995. Mr. Colgan was her then solicitor but is no longer representing her. As Mr. Colgan did not represent her before the Inquiry, the matters set out in his Affidavit must have come from information given to him by his client. This Affidavit was the grounding Affidavit upon which the Applicant obtained leave to issue these proceedings, and in my view it is misleading in a number of particulars. At paragraph 6 it implies at least that the High Court had made an Order in relation to the inspection of her statement which was not in accordance with the offer made by the Board of Inquiry. In fact the Court ordered exactly what the Board of Inquiry had already offered. Furthermore, in paragraph 8 it is stated that the Applicant attended a Dr. Marshall between the 23rd and 24th November who determined that she would be unfit to continue her duties up to 5th December, 1994, and that a medical certificate was produced covering the period in question. While the medical certificate is dated 26th November, it was not in fact sent to the Board of Inquiry until 20th January, 1995.

25. Finally, and most seriously, in Paragraph 10 of his Affidavit Mr. Colgan states:-

26. I have no doubt that the Applicant was aware at all times of the time and place in which the Inquiry was going to take place and that she made a deliberate decision to absent herself from the Inquiry, firstly citing an intention to apply to the High Court which she did not do, and, secondly, stating that she was ill and would send in a certificate, which she also did not do so until long after the Inquiry had concluded. It is also notable that there is no evidence before the Court from Dr. Marshall.

27. I should add that in making these comments on Mr. Colgan's Affidavit, I am in no way implying any wrongdoing on his part. I am quite satisfied that anything he averred to was what he was told by his client, and, therefore, any inaccuracies in his Affidavit are the inaccuracies of his client and not of Mr. Colgan.

28. Accordingly, I am quite satisfied, firstly, that the Tribunal acted in accordance with its own regulations, and, secondly, that in conducting the Inquiry, the Board of Inquiry at all times acted reasonably and in accordance with the principles of natural and constitutional justice. In particular, in the light of the events which occurred, the Board of Inquiry was perfectly entitled to continue the Inquiry in the absence of the Applicant.

29. Accordingly, I would refuse the relief claimed.