A High Court judge has ruled that a Garda should not be subjected to a second disciplinary inquiry over taking a bluetooth speaker from a confiscated vehicle.
Ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Garrett Simons said a board of inquiry has already dismissed the alleged breach of discipline, so allowing it to be put before a second panel would be contrary to the values of âres judicataâ, meaning a matter already judged.
Garda Adrian Ivers, who was stationed for many years in Cootehill, Co Cavan before being suspended in February 2020, is entitled to a court order quashing the commissionerâs decision to appoint a second board of inquiry, the judge said.
Mr Justice Simons set out how the allegations related to Gda Iversâs removal of a bluetooth speaker and charging cable from a vehicle that had been impounded at a Garda station.
The garda asserted that he removed the items over concerns they could be stolen as the vehicle would not lock. He said he brought them home for safekeeping, intending to return them to the station when he was next on duty.
He claimed he left the speaker in his glovebox and forgot to return it before the seized vehicle was towed elsewhere. Two days after taking the items he explained the situation to a colleague, he said. Hours later his superior told him he was being investigated for theft, he claimed.
The allegation against him was that the removal was improper and that he had intended to retain the items for his own use.
Gda Ivers strongly denies theft.
Mr Justice Simons said the incident had been referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions who directed that no charges should be brought.
In May 2020 the Garda Commissioner issued Gda Ivers with a notice of termination purporting to dismiss him. The garda successfully challenged this notice in the High Court and it was overturned.
The Garda SÃochána Ombudsman Commission (Gsoc) also investigated the incident and in October 2021 recommended disciplinary proceedings be instituted over potential breaches of discipline including possible discreditable conduct, neglect of duty and misuse of property.
A board of inquiry was established in March 2023 but was unable to proceed due to a lack of supporting documentation. It emerged that the board only had the Gsoc investigation report before it and did not have the original statements and materials underlying that report, said the judge.
In October 2023, the commissioner purported to appoint another board of inquiry. Gda Ivers, represented by senior counsels Mark Harty and Eoin Lawlor, and Hughes Murphy Solicitors, challenged this decision in the High Court.
In his ruling on Friday, Mr Justice Simons said the commissioner contended that the first boardâs determination about the allegations against Gda Ivers was not final and did not reach a conclusion on the merits of the claims.
The judge said a determination âon the meritsâ is not confined to the board having addressed and resolved all allegations.
He said the board formally decided there was insufficient information to deal with the matter properly. This can only be interpreted as the board having determined that, considering the insufficiency of the evidence, the alleged breach of discipline was unproven, he said.
Mr Justice Simons noted the board did not adjourn the hearing to allow further evidence to be adduced or exercise its powers to require the attendance of witnesses and production of documents. Instead, it brought the inquiry to a conclusion, which âcan only be characterised as a dismissal of the allegations as unprovenâ, said the judge.
