Garda wins leave to fight Callinan’s ‘sacking’ orders

A Cork garda was told in January by former Garda commissioner Martin Callinan that he would be sacked for breaches of discipline, including accessing the force’s Pulse records.

However, Colm O’Flaherty, of Anglesea Street Garda Station, Cork, was yesterday granted leave in the High Court by Mr Justice Gerard Hogan to judicially challenge the then commissioner’s decision and a number of other proposed punishments, including suspension from duty and a cut in pay.

Kieran Kelly, counsel, told the court Mr Callinan had told Mr O’Flaherty that if he did not resign, he would be dismissed in relation to the alleged breaches of discipline.

He said that following a hearing by the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission, a Board of Inquiry had been set up to inquire into four alleged breaches of discipline.

Mr Kelly said the board had reported in September last year and, despite recommending a monetary fine, the commissioner had ordered Mr O’Flaherty to resign or be dismissed.

The court heard that, on September 4, following negotiations and an agreement entered into with a Garda superintendent, who had been a member of the inquiry board, Mr O’Flaherty had entered guilty pleas as required to the breaches of discipline alleged against him.

The guilty pleas had been tendered in the specific circumstances where it was understood that the superintendent involved had contacted Garda HQ and had obtained assurances.

The superintendent had assured Mr O’Flaherty’s solicitor he had it “guaranteed from the top” that, in the event of the guilty pleas, there would be only a monetary penalty.

Mr Kelly told the court Mr Callinan had determined that the penalty for four of eight breaches of discipline should be that Mr O’Flaherty resign in lieu of dismissal, and in the event of his failure to do so, he would be dismissed.

He said no reasons had been provided by Mr Callinan for his decision.

Judge Hogan said he would grant Mr O’Flaherty leave to seek to judicially review the decisions made against him. The court was satisfied Mr O’Flaherty had raised an arguable case and granted a stay on any further procedures taking place arising out of the decisions taken. The matter was adjourned until April 30.