Probationary garda loses appeal against suspension over teenager's rape accusation

The rape complaint had been withdrawn and, in April 2022, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided there should be no criminal prosecution

The appellant joined An Garda Síochána in November 2019 and was suspended in August 2020 after the then 23-year-old was accused of raping a 17-year-old girl while off duty. File picture

A probationary garda has lost his appeal against his almost five-year suspension from duty, although the Court of Appeal found the Garda Commissioner got parts of the process wrong.

In a written judgment, the three-judge court ruled the suspension should remain in place, despite finding the Commissioner failed to properly deal with representations made by the garda’s solicitor and did not give adequate reasons for extending the suspension. 

The judges said those shortcomings were not enough to overturn the decision.

The appellant, identified as JM, joined An Garda Síochána in November 2019 and was suspended in August 2020 after the then 23-year-old was accused of raping a 17-year-old girl while off duty. 

He denied the allegation, saying the sexual activity was consensual but that he stopped because he believed the girl was too drunk. He also admitted driving while “100% over the limit” in an effort to find her after she left.

The rape complaint was later withdrawn and, in April 2022, the Director of Public Prosecutions decided there should be no criminal prosecution. 

However, the Garda Síochána Ombudsman Commission (GSOC) later recommended disciplinary action over the circumstances of the sexual encounter and his admission that he drove while intoxicated.

JM argued his suspension had gone on for far too long, had unfairly damaged his career and reputation, and that the Garda Commissioner had failed to properly explain why it was being extended. 

Court ruling

The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments, finding the suspension remained lawful because the disciplinary process had continued to move forward and JM had remained on full pay throughout.

The court said the Commissioner should have responded to a detailed letter sent by JM’s solicitor asking for the suspension to be lifted and seeking an explanation for why it was continuing. It also found the reasons given for extending the suspension were not fully adequate.

Despite that, the judges said there was no point in overturning the suspension because the decision being challenged had long since been replaced by later decisions. 

They also noted that the disciplinary process was close to finishing when the legal challenge was brought and that the court proceedings themselves delayed its conclusion.

Mr Justice Binchy said JM had succeeded on some of the legal issues he raised but ultimately dismissed the appeal. 

The Court of Appeal also noted that the disciplinary hearing has since finished and that it understood the Board of Inquiry had recommended JM’s dismissal, although it said his current employment status was not before the court.