High Court

Sheehan v Commissioner for An Garda Siochana and Others 

1996/35 JR

19 March 1998 

MORRIS P: 

This matter comes before the court on foot of an order of the 29 January, 1996 made by Flood, J whereby the applicant was given leave to apply for an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the respondent of the 3 November, 1995 replacing him as area administrator for the area of Scariff by Sergeant G Reidy and for a declaration that the said decision was made ultra vires and in breach of natural and constitutional justice and was void and of no legal effect and for an order of mandamus directing the applicant to be reinstated as area administrator for the Scariff area. 

The circumstances in which this matter comes before the court can be stated shortly as follows. 

The applicant is a sergeant in An Garda Siochana and having joined the force on the 13 April, 1982 was promoted to sergeant in 1990. He was subsequently stationed in Swanlinbar and in February of 1992 he was transferred to Scariff station in Co Clare. 

Shortly prior to that date, in 1991, the Garda Siochana had introduced a community police scheme and this was introduced into the Killaloe area, in which Scariff is situate, on the 23 September, 1991. The purpose of the community policing scheme was to develop a new spirit of Garda community relations and the scheme was particularly relevant in rural areas. As was stated by Superintendent O'Boyle of the district of Killaloe when introducing the scheme in the Scariff area the members were to ensure that visits to the elderly should take place and that advice should be given on crime prevention. People in isolated areas should be visited every few weeks and there should be visits to the schools. Contacts should be made with Community Alert, Neighbourhood Watch schemes and members should be involved in local clubs, organisations etc and it was required that members would complete a monthly activity report at the end of each month in relation to their activities. It was stressed by Superintendent O'Boyle that the scheme was very important and "to this end a high Garda visibility outside is essential and to achieve this members will be detailed for foot patrols/beat duty as much as possible with particular emphasis on banks, post offices, cash deliveries, gatherings at functions, discos, football matches etc . . ." 

It is common case that this was to be a high profile public relations exercise so as to restore and enhance relations between members of An Garda Siochana and the public. 

By directive date stamped 8 December, 1983 Superintendent O'Boyle recommended to Chief Superintendent Creaton that the applicant be appointed Area Administrator/Sergeant I/C at Scariff station and on the 9 December, 1993 Chief Superintendent Creaton approved this appointment "for a period of six months commencing 13/12/1993 after which you should report further with your recommendations on the suitability of the member for permanent appointment". This appointment was transmitted to the applicant who duly noted the appointment on or about the 1O December, 1993. 

I accept as manifestly correct the statement contained in Superintendent Aidan Killoran's affidavit that "it is imperative that the Area Administrator has the confidence and respect of An Garda Siochana under his command and of the general public . . . the function of Area Administrator is an important one. The person assigned to be Area Administrator must, if the aims of the community policing initiative are to be met, had the esteem of his colleagues and general public." 

This appointment did not carry any additional remuneration however it effectively appointed the applicant to be the officer in charge of the station and I am satisfied that it conferred upon him a significant status within the Garda Siochana because he then became the officer responsible for the day to day administration of affairs within the Scariff station. 

I am also satisfied that not only did the appointment of Area Administrator confer status on the officer but of even more importance would be the failure of an officer who had been appointed on a temporary basis to that position to have such an appointment made permanent. This would be a serious reflection on the officers capabilities and this would be reflected in promotional prospects. 

In his grounding affidavit the applicant says that on the 3 November, 1995 he received a telephone call notifying him that he was being replaced as Area Administrator and that he subsequently received the decision which is exhibit "B" of his affidavit. 

The first issue which arises in this case is whether the plaintiff was, as the respondents say, appointed as a temporary administrator or, as the applicant says he was appointed as Area Administrator simplicitor. 

I am of the opinion that the terms of the applicant's appointment were clear. He was to hold the position of Area Administrator for a period of six months commencing on the 13 December, 1993 and it was clearly envisaged that he would be made permanent providing that he was found to be suitable for the position. I reach this conclusion from my interpretation of Chief Superintendent Creaton's communication of the 9 December, 1993 ("after which you should report further with your recommendations on the suitability of the member for permanent appointment"). I can envisage no circumstances in which Sergeant Sheehan having been found to be in all respects suitable would have been removed from the position and another appointed in his place. I believe that it is inevitable that he would have been made permanent. 

However I stress that such a step was entirely dependent upon his being found to be suitable. 

In the exchange of affidavits which have been filed in this case a different emphasis and a different interpretation has been placed upon the events which subsequently occurred however I am satisfied that there can be no doubt that disagreements occurred between the applicant and Garda P Lowney which centred around the fact that even though on sick leave the applicant continued to collect the post for Scariff station from the Post Office or the postman before handing it into the station in question. This gave rise to the intervention of Superintendent O'Boyle. There is also no doubt that a member of the public Mr Paddy Connolly made complaints about the applicant using abusive language towards him and, on the 30 July, 1994, stamping on his disabled foot. Moreover the applicant's conduct gave rise to correspondence between solicitors acting for a vehicle owner and a complaint as to the manner in which prosecution had been handled by the applicant. In addition in October of 1994 the applicant caused upset in the Garda Station by bringing his three year old daughter into the public office in a nude state to the embarrassment of the other officers stationed there. 

Again in March of 1995 difficulties arose between Garda Lowney and the applicant in relation to the way in which Garda Lowney dealt with activities in the Credit Union. This gave rise to allegations of unauthorised overtime. This gave rise to correspondence between Superintendent Corcoran and the applicant on the 25 May, 1995 in which "strained relations" between the two members of the Garda Siochana were referred to. 

Without enumerating reasons why Superintendent Corcoran had occasion to speak to the applicant it is sufficient to say that I accept that there were numerous occasions upon which this became necessary. 

Again I accept that in January 1995 an inspection by Inspector Barry gave rise to differences of opinion on a claim by the applicant for overtime when the Inspector required to examine the financial records of the Station. The applicant's justification for the claim of overtime, is summarised in his statement submitted to his authorities when he says "it would have been remiss of me as Area Administrator to allow a superior officer inspect Station records that concerned finances without a member present". This minute is dated the 8 February, 1995. 

In the circumstances of this case it is unnecessary for me to determine whether it was the applicant on the one hand or Garda Lowry, Mr Connolly, Superintendent Corcoran, Chief Superintendent Quinn or Inspector Barry that was correct. One thing of which I am sure and that is relations between the applicant and the other members serving in the Scariff area and the members of the public and his superior officers were entirely unsatisfactory and they fell far below the standard required from someone holding or hoping to be appointed to the position of permanent Area Administrator. 

It is submitted on behalf of the applicant that even allowing that this is the case then by reason of the fact that the post is a significant one and the failure of his superior officers to confirm him as permanent in the post would have devastating effects on his career, he is entitled to be confronted with the complaints against him and given an opportunity to answer these complaints. 

The complaints related to his attitude and relationship with the other members of the force stationed in the Scariff area to the community in general and to the way in which he was carrying out his duties. I accept the evidence of Superintendent Patrick O'Boyle that during the course of his posting as district officer he met the applicant on numerous occasions and had discussions with him because of difficulties that had arisen by him in discharge of his duties and his attitude generally. I accept his evidence that he spoke to the applicant on several occasions regarding his dispute with Garda Lowry and the acrimony caused within the Station as a result of his attitude and that he discussed a complaint made by a member of the public, Mr Paddy Connolly, and that he spoke to him regarding a driving offence which he was attempting to prosecute and in respect of which complaints had been made by a solicitor and that he spoke to the applicant regarding the bringing of his three year old daughter into the public office of the Station on numerous occasions while unclothed to the embarrassment of other members of the force present. 

The law is in my view well settled in Flanagan v University College Dublin [1988] IR 724 Barron, J said the following; 

"Once a lay tribunal is required to act judicially, the procedures to be adopted by it must be reasonable having regard to this requirement and to the consequences for the person concerned in the event of an adverse decision. Accordingly, procedures which might afford a sufficient protection to a person concerned in one case, and so acceptable, might not be acceptable in a more serious case . . . Matters to be considered are the form in which complaints should be made, the time to be allowed to the person concerned to prepare a defence, and the nature of the hearing at which the defence may be presented. In addition depending on the gravity of the matter the person concerned may be entitled to be represented and may also be entitled to be informed of their rights. Clearly, matters of a criminal nature, must be treated more seriously than matters of a civil nature, but ultimately the criterion must be the consequences for the person concerned of an adverse verdict." 

That passage was expressly approved of by Mr Justice Blayney in Gallagher v Revenue Commissioners and O'Callaghan [1991] 2 IR 370. 

Applying these criteria I am entirely satisfied that as a result of the various interviews which Sergeant Sheehan had with his superior officers as detailed in the affidavits he was left in no doubt whatsoever of the existence of the problems which had arisen and of the complaints that were being made against him. No obstruction was placed in his way in giving his verdict of the events that had occurred or giving any explanation which he wished to offer for these occurrences. I am of the view that his rights were fully respected observed and protected at all stages during this transaction and he was under no disadvantage in putting his side of the case or furnishing any explanation. 

There is in addition another aspect to this case. I am satisfied that the position of Area Administrator is one which requires that the holder be possessed of particular qualities and in particular a capacity to relate to other members of the Garda Siochana and to the public in general. Without purporting to attribute any blame for the fact I am satisfied beyond any doubt that the plaintiff did not possess the qualities to make him suitable for appointment on a permanent basis. I am satisfied as a matter of fact that significant problems arose between the applicant and members of the community, other members of the force his superior officers. Given the nature of the qualities which an Area Administrator is required to possess I am satisfied that the respondents were justified in declining to appoint him as permanent Administrator at the expiration of his six month term of office. I do not consider that it is of any significance that a considerable period of time elapsed between the expiry of the initial six month period and the decision not to appoint the applicant as permanent Area Administrator. I am satisfied that he did not become permanent by mere passage of time. The reason for the delay in deciding whether to make the applicant permanent or otherwise arose from purely practical circumstances namely the involvement of the relevant parties in a triple murder investigation taking place in the area. While it is true that he acted as Area Administrator after the expiration of the initial period of six months in June of 1994 up to the 3 November, 1995 in my view no appointment to that position ever took place such as would entitle him to regard himself as holding that position. 

Accordingly I refuse the relief sought.