Senior Garda succeeds in pre-trial motion in case over alleged flawed recruitment process of two Deputy Commissioners

Applications by the Public Appointments Service and the State to strike out a senior garda's action over an alleged flawed recruitment process for the position of Deputy Commissioner have been dismissed by the High Court.

Ms Justice Leonie Reynolds today cleared the way for proceedings brought by Assistant Commissioner John Fintan Fanning to proceed to a full hearing.

Mr Fanning was also entitled to include an issue concerning the alleged non-disclosure of an anonymous letter as part of his claim against the defendants, the judge ruled.

In proceedings commenced in 2015, Mr Fanning seeks declarations to the effect that the process of recruiting and appointing two Deputy Commissioners of An Garda Síochána was in breach of his legitimate expectation and right to fair procedures.

Mr Fanning was among seven persons shortlisted for interview by a five-member interview board in March 2015. He was told the following day he was not successful.

He has also raised issues with the nature of questions he was asked by the interview panel about his views on left-wing political “extremists” while being interviewed for the position of Deputy Commissioner.

His proceedings are against the Public Appointments Service, Ireland and the Attorney General. The defendants deny any wrongdoing and have opposed the claim.

In November 2015, the High Court dismissed Mr Fanning's application for injunctions restraining the recruitment process for the post of Deputy Commissioner.

In pre-trial motions, the defendants asked the High Court to strike out his claim due to a failure to deliver a statement of claim and a failure to prosecute the case with due expedition.

When the statement of claim was delivered, it contained a claim of a conflict of interest and a breach of fair procedures relating to the non-disclosure of an anonymous letter dated August 13, 2014, was made by Mr Fanning for the first time.

As a result, the defendants brought a separate motion seeking to have this aspect of Mr Fanning's statement of claim struck out on the basis the claim against them had been altered considerably.

Given the alleged delay by Mr Fanning, the defendants argued that a new ground at what was a late stage would prejudice their defence of the proceedings.

Mr Fanning, represented by Paul McGarry SC and John Ferry Bl, had opposed the applications.

In her judgement, Ms Justice Reynolds said the court was of the view that it would be "a great injustice" to Mr Fanning to accede to the application to dismiss the action on the grounds of delay.

Both sides have been guilty of delay, the judge said. The delay in the delivery of a statement of claim was clearly inordinate, the judge said, and claims that it was inexcusable did not find favour with the court.

The court, however, had to consider the balance of justice, and held that the defendants were "themselves guilty of precisely the same shortcoming".

The Judge accepted that the defendants were deprived of the testimony of an important witness, who has died.

However, there were a number of other members of the interview board available to it, and the court was not satisfied that the defendants were seriously prejudiced in that regard.

Given that a statement of claim has been delivered the Judge said the court wanted to see the case progressed.

The judge also said that given the court's findings on the issue of delay she was dismissing the second motion. The judge also directed the defendants to file their defence without further delay.