Dismissed detective bids to overturn Morris reports

A DISMISSED Garda Detective Sergeant has brought a High Court challenge aimed at overturning adverse findings made against him by the Morris Tribunal in its report of an arson attack on a mobile phone mast in Co Donegal, including that it was he who caused a device to be placed on the mast.

Detective Sgt John White may also seek leave at a later stage to challenge two other reports of the tribunal, the court was told yesterday. Those two reports, and the report on the mast incident, were published in August 2006.

Det White, who has at all times protested his innocence of the allegations made against him, claims the tribunal has breached his constitutional rights and is “guilty of bias in its dealings with me”. Following the tribunal’s findings, he had been dismissed from An Garda Síochána and the tribunal’s conduct had exacted a heavy personal, medical and financial toll on him and his family, he claims. He had also been refused most of his legal costs of dealing with the tribunal.

Mr Justice Michael Peart yesterday granted leave to Cormac Ó Duallachain SC, for Det White, to bring judicial review proceedings challenging the tribunal’s report on the Garda investigation into an arson attack on a mobile phone mast site at Ardara, Co Donegal, in October and November 1996.

In particular, Det White is seeking orders overturning the tribunal’s findings that he was in charge of the investigation into the arson attack, had failed to act as an investigating officer would have been expected to and had “rushed” the arrest of suspects following the discovery of an apparent device at the scene on November 19, 1996.

He claims there is no evidence for the finding that he had engaged in wrongdoing and had caused the device to be placed on the mast for the purposes of effecting arrests of certain persons under Section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act.

Among other findings, he is also seeking to have quashed is the finding his account of his involvement in the investigation into the arson attack was riddled with inconsistencies. He also disputes findings he manipulated the investigation and, in particular, Supt Denis Cullinane.

In its investigation into the mast incident, Det White claims the tribunal effectively called upon him to mount a defence. Given the serious nature of the allegations, he also contends the tribunal was incorrect to make findings on the basis of a standard of “an opinion as a probability”.

He claims the tribunal failed to conduct a proper and adequate inquiry into the claims in that it called no evidence as to his movements at the relevant times, no evidence connecting him to fireworks stored at Glenties Garda Station and no evidence to establish he had keys of the mast compound at the relevant time.

The tribunal had erred in law in relying on circumstantial evidence and had reached its conclusions unsupported by any evidence, he contends. No witness claimed he or any person acting on his behalf planted the device, it is argued.