Former garda launches bid to quash decision to sack him

A FORMER garda has begun his High Court challenge aimed at overturning his dismissal from the force.

Kevin Galvin, aged 37, was a member of An Garda Síochána for 13 years until June 16, 2010, when he was dismissed under the 2005 Garda Síochána Act, following an internal investigation, because his continued membership of the force would “undermine public confidence” in the gardaí.

Mr Galvin, a married father of two from Furry Park Road, Clontarf, Dublin, claims the decision to summarily dismiss him was unfair, unlawful, lacked fair procedures, and breached his constitutional and human rights.

In an action before Mr Justice John Hedigan, the court heard Mr Galvin, who worked in IT at Garda headquarters, Phoenix Park, Dublin, was sacked following approximately 19 complaints against him.

Those complaints included that he was the subject of several district court prosecutions brought by Dublin City Council for breaches of fire safety, planning and littering regulations in three properties he owns.

In addition, Mr Galvin was found to have neglected his duty by being absent from his post, fell asleep on the job and had used official Garda postal facilities for personal use.

In proceedings against the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice, the Attorney General and the Government, Mr Galvin is seeking orders from the court quashing the decision to fire him and an order reinstating him to the force.

The state opposes the action and denies all of his claims, saying there is “no reality” to the complaints.

Opening the case, Séamas Ó Tuathail SC, for Mr Galvin, said that in January 2010 a senior garda wrote to his client, informing him he was of the opinion he should be dismissed. Counsel said Mr Galvin replied to that letter in February 2010, but was informed he was being dismissed in June 2010.

He said his client “was not dealt with fairly in law by the processes in which he was purportedly dismissed from the Garda Síochána”.

The state denied that the decision to dismiss Mr Galvin was unlawful or unfair. It added that Mr Galvin had been jailed for a few days after being found in contempt of High Court orders requiring him to carry out certain fire safety works at properties he owned.