High Court refuses to quash decision summarily dismissing convicted garda

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 366
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice Sean Gillane

Delivering judgment for the High Court, Mr Justice Sean Gillane opined: “AGS is a disciplined force with the Commissioner at its head, and the Oireachtas has charged him with the responsibility of making decisions as to whether a member is fit for retention in these circumstances. While a different view might have been taken as to the sanction imposed, that is not the test, and it is not for me to second guess the decision reached by the Commissioner.”

Background

On 14 August 2022, the applicant, a serving member of An Garda Síochána attached to Clonmel garda station, was stopped at a checkpoint and was found to have been driving while four times over the legal alcohol limit.

On 18 May 2023, the applicant was convicted at Cashel District Court of drunk driving contrary to s.4(4)(a) and 4(5) of the Road Traffic Act 2010. The applicant was fined €500 and was disqualified from holding a driving licence for three years.

The applicant did not appeal the conviction.

On 9 February 2024, the Garda Commissioner notified the applicant that he proposed to dismiss him pursuant to Regulation 39 of the Garda Síochána (Discipline) Regulations 2007 on grounds that he considered the applicant to be unfit for retention, that the applicant had lost the trust of the public and his colleagues, and that it was wholly inappropriate that he continue to serve as a member having committed a serious breach of discipline.

Through his solicitors, the applicant submitted inter alia that summary dismissal was a disproportionate sanction, that there were none of the aggravating factors described in the HQ Directive 11/2024 present, and that where the only document provided to the applicant by the Commissioner was the conviction order, there was no sufficient basis upon which the Commissioner could opine as to how the applicant was viewed by the public and his colleagues.

On 20 January 2025, the Commissioner notified the applicant of his dismissal, effective from 4 February 2025.

The applicant brought judicial review proceedings seeking orders quashing the decision to dismiss him, directing the Commissioner to provide all materials considered by him and furnished to the Policing Authority in seeking their consent to the applicant’s dismissal, and seeking declarations that the Commissioner acted ultra vires and was obliged to have regard to his own policies and directives.

The parties’ positions

The applicant argued that the Commissioner acted unfairly and in breach of fair procedures in failing to provide him with all materials relied upon in considering whether to dismiss him so that he could make effective submissions before a decision was reached, and in failing to provide the Policing Authority with all relevant material.

The applicant further complained that the Commissioner inter alia failed to provide him with the material sent to the Policing Authority, fettered his discretion in his approach to the meaning of “a serious breach of discipline” and the identification of an appropriate sanction, and failed to have regard to the Directive.

The Commissioner submitted that he acted within his powers and lawfully executed his functions under the Garda Síochána Act 2005 and the 2007 Regulations, arguing that there was no requirement under the 2007 Regulations to provide the documentation sought by the applicant and that all parties were aware of the material facts relied upon by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner further contended inter alia that he properly applied Regulation 39 and was entitled to summarily dismiss the applicant without holding an inquiry, and that the offence predated the Directive and so he did not err in failing to refer to it.

The High Court

Having considered the applicable legal provisions and caselaw, Mr Justice Gillane had regard to Harrison v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2025] IEHC 303 in expressing the view that the applicant could not “sensibly say” that he did not know the basis for the Commissioner’s proposal to dismiss him pursuant to Regulation 39, nor was he in a position where he was not provided with sufficient information to challenge the reasoning leading to the decision to dismiss him.

Noting that the alleged breach of discipline and material facts could not have been set out in clearer terms in the letter of 9 February 2024, the judge considered that it was “manifest that what was alleged was criminal conduct for the purposes of the Schedule to the 2007 Regulations.”

Finding that it was of “central relevance” that there was no dispute as to the primary facts that the applicant was detected drink driving and was convicted on the criminal standard of proof, Mr Justice Gillane opined that there was no basis to suggest a “hidden or ulterior basis” for the Commissioner’s proposal to dismiss the applicant.

The court explained that while this finding was not changed by the fact that the Commissioner must have been made aware of the underlying facts by way of a garda witness statement or report, some of the difficulty might have been avoided if this had been frankly stated by the Commissioner.

The court was satisfied that the applicant had been afforded two opportunities to provide written submissions and that both of these had clearly been considered by the Commissioner, who in his reasoning made numerous references to the applicant’s “high level of intoxication” which he determined to outweigh the mitigating factors.

Mr Justice Gillane confirmed that in addressing the question of whether a member is unfit for retention, it is for the Commissioner to assess and draw an appropriate inference from the establish facts as to whether public confidence has or would be undermined.

In this regard, the court considered that the Commissioner had regard to road and public safety, the responsibility of members, the credibility of a convicted member in upholding and enforcing the law, the functions of An Garda Síochána and the principle of policing by consent.

Finding nothing unreasonable or irrational in the Commissioner’s approach and finding that the applicant had been afforded fair procedures, Mr Justice Gillane determined that the three components of McEnery v. Commissioner of An Garda Síochána [2016] IESC 66 in relation to the invocation of Regulation 39 had been met and communicated to the applicant.

The judge was not convinced that there was any merit to the applicant’s argument concerning the Commissioner’s failure to have regard to the Directive, finding that “the Directive is no more than a statement of common sense” and that “These are factors which any decision maker would take into account if they were present.”

The court continued, “Having regard to the view that the Commissioner took in relation to the level of the alcohol reading, I do not see how the Directive could have influenced the result in this case had it been applied.”

Mr Justice Gillane was also satisfied that the 2007 Regulations did not contemplate affording members a right to seek to influence the Policing Authority on the question of consent.

Conclusion

Expressing some sympathy for the applicant in light of his record of service and good conduct, the court refused to “second guess” the Commissioner’s decision and refused the reliefs sought.

English v Commissioner of An Garda Síochána & Ors [2026] IEHC 366