The Director of Public Prosecutions was restrained by a Supreme Court injunction yesterday from continuing a prosecution against a Co Waterford man accused of assaulting and obstructing gardai.
The decision arose from a complaint by Mr Derek Carlton, of Kyne Park, Abbeyside, Dungarvan, to the Garda Complaints Board about his treatment by gardai.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the investigating officer was a Garda inspector from Waterford and at least two of the gardai complained about were based in the same station. Mr Carlton also named two gardai from the Dungarvan district.
Mr Carlton claimed an officer from Waterford should not have been appointed to investigate his complaint and that a garda of superintendent rank should have carried out the investigation.
Shortly before the six-month period for instituting summary proceedings had expired it emerged that it was intended to use statements taken from gardai by the officer investigating Mr Carlton's complaints for the purpose of prosecuting Mr Carlton.
Mr Carlton claimed this was unlawful due to confidentiality obligations in Section 12 of the Garda Siochana (Complaints) Act, 1986, which established the Garda Complaints Board.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the High Court made an order prohibiting Dungarvan District Court from dealing with summonses against Mr Carlton bearing the date December 27th, 1997.
The court also quashed the appointment of the investigating Garda inspector.
The DPP and the Garda Complaints Board appealed to the Supreme Court.
However, during the appeal hearing, said Mr Justice Geoghegan, it was conceded an inspector of the Waterford District should not have been appointed. Neither was the High Court order of prohibition appealed.
However, Mr Justice Geoghegan said, there was then "a strange turn of events" because the DPP decided to have the existing summonses struck out and issued new ones.
The view taken by the DPP was that the prohibition order related to summonses dated December 27th, 1997.
Mr Carlton's lawyers had sought a substitution order from the Supreme Court prohibiting the district judge hearing or dealing with the DPP's proceedings.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said an order of prohibition ought not to be made against a district judge who was not a party to the proceedings.
Instead, the court would grant an injunction against the DPP restraining the DPP from the prosecutions against Mr Carlton.
On the question of the rank of the officer to investigate a complaint, Mr Justice Geoghegan referred to a memorandum of the Assistant Garda Commissioner of 1991 that the "Complaints Board has expressed concern at the pattern of appointment of investigating officers".
The board had pointed out that the great majority of investigating officers were inspectors rather than superintendents, "whereas the relevant provision of the 1986 Act clearly weights in favour of a superintendent".
Mr Justice Geoghegan said normal practice would be the appointment of a superintendent but there might be good reasons to appoint an inspector.
In relation to Mr Carlton's claim that information arising from his complaint should not be used to prosecute him, Mr Justice Geoghegan said the fact that information may be held under an obligation of confidentiality - whether that obligation arose from statute or in some other way - did not mean and had never been held to mean that such information could not be used in a criminal investigation.