Possibility of dismissal left hanging over garda

In December 2017 Member A was attending a Christmas party for his Garda station. At around 3.30am he left the bar heading for his hotel bedroom. While crossing the lobby there was a verbal exchange between himself and two civilians, a man and woman.

The exchange developed into a physical altercation. What transpired is the subject of criminal proceedings due before the district court in the coming law term.

Within minutes, the night manager had contacted local gardaí who attended at the scene. No serious injuries were sustained, but there were conflicting accounts as to whom was the aggressor.

The couple claimed that Member A had assaulted them. He denied this vehemently and said that he was entirely the victim. Hotel CCTV caught the whole incident and was made available to the gardaí the following day.

Within a week, Member A was assigned to desk duties. This is standard procedure for a garda who may be the subject of a criminal investigation. Yet Member A feels that he should not have been subjected to this as he believed there wasn’t even prima facia evidence to support any charge against him.

The following day he provided a cautioned statement to the investigating gardaí. A cautioned statement differs from a witness statement in that it is preceded by a caution and reserved for those who may be suspects in a crime.

There was nothing unusual at this point in Member A being asked to give a cautioned statement.

On January 3, 2018, Member A was served with Regulation 24 disciplinary papers.

Regulation 24 provides for the most severe disciplinary sanction in An Garda Síochána, all the way to dismissal. The narrative in the papers said that he was “involved in an altercation that led to an assault of a member of the public”. It is unclear how it was established that he had assaulted anybody.

Thirteen days later, he was told he was being suspended. This was more than a month after the incident. The other parties had already given statements long before this. long given statements by then.

The CCTV footage, which Member A claims totally vindicates his position, had long been examined and deconstructed. It is entirely unclear why it was felt by somebody at this juncture that Member A should be suspended from duty.

One possibility is that new evidence had come to light in the days before January 16, 2017, that further implicated him. If so, it has never been disclosed.

One might even posit a suggestion that if damning new evidence against Member A had come to light it would surely be a clincher in pressing criminal charges, not to mention pursuing him through an onerous disciplinary process. Yet he has never been subjected to either.

While suspended, he left the country out of embarrassment. As one source familiar with the case put it: “People would have thought ‘there’s that guard who’s been suspended for beating up a woman’.”

On March 14, he received a telephone call from one of the investigating gardaí to the effect that the DPP had decided there was to be no prosecution against him.

The two civilians are understood to be facing prosecution under section 2 of the Non Fatal Offences Against the Person Act. This will most likely be dealt with at district court level.

Two days later, Member A received a call from his own supervisor, telling him that the suspension was lifted and he was to report to work the following day, St Patrick’s Day.

Within six weeks he was told that the disciplinary process would not now be followed. The disciplinary process is independent of any criminal investigation. For instance, a member could be cleared of any crime yet on the basis of evidence subjected to a disciplinary process. This is fairly routine when a member is the subject of a criminal investigation.

Yet in Member A’s case, the possibility of dismissal was simply left hanging over him, on a highly unusual basis, for more than four months before being dropped, again with no explanation. He has not since been officially informed that the disciplinary process has been discontinued.

Similarly, he has never been given a credible explanation for his suspension.

The circumstances around Member A’s suspension are understood to be a core plank of the investigation being conducted by GSOC into a senior garda officer.

Last March, Member A made a protected disclosure to GSOC about the events surrounding his suspension and other issues he believes require investigation.

GSOC conducts a preliminary assessment before deciding whether a complaint merits a full-blown investigation. Such an investigation can be into a possible breach of discipline or the alleged commission of a crime.

On December 19, as per the Garda Síochána Act, GSOC informed the garda commissioner that it was conducting a criminal investigation into one of his senior officers.