A GARDA sergeant who was charged by the Garda authorities with refusing to disclose the identity of an informant to a senior officer has challenged disciplinary procedures in the High Court.
Garda Sgt Michael Hughes- (55), of Pearse Street Station, Dublin, is taking the action against the Garda Commissioner. He is seeking to have quashed a decision of a disciplinary inquiry in October 1994 which found him guilty of two breaches of regulations.
He was fined £150 on each of the breaches, which was taken from his salary, and he was transferred from the Special Detective Unit in Harcourt Square to ordinary duties in Pearse Street.
Sgt Hughes alleges that the procedures were a breach of his rights under the Garda Discipline Regulations 1989. The defence denies the claims.
Mr Brian McGovern SC, for Sgt Hughes, said the action arose out of an inquiry which was held on foot of the regulations.
The appointing officer at the inquiry was Chief Supt Patrick Sheil, now retired. Mr McGovern said the appointing officer was in fact the person making the complaint, and this was clearly inappropriate.
The investigating officer was Supt Michael Carty, who was appointed in October 1993 to look into the allegations. After statements were taken, he made out a report for Chief Supt Sheil. In May 1994 he issued a form outlining the breach of discipline. Sgt Hughes returned the form, denying the breach.
The alleged breach was for disobedience of an order that following receipt of intelligence alleging certain intentions towards a Garda X by an unlawful organisation, Sgt Hughes informed Garda X on two occasions in September and October 1993, contrary to procedures.
In July 1994 Sgt Hughes received another form which contained two charges where the original in May had contained only one. There was an entirely new charge.
The new charge was that Sgt Hughes wilfully disobeyed an order following the receipt of intelligence of allegations of certain intentions towards Garda X by an unlawful organisation, that he refused to disclose to Chief Supt Sheil the identity of his informant, contrary to procedures.
Mr McGovern said it was admitted at the inquiry that the second breach had never been investigated. It could not have been investigated because it referred periods going beyond the date the appointment of the investigating officer.
Sgt Hughes only cave statements on and answered the first complaint. He was never informed of the substance of the second and he did not have the opportunity to prepare his defence to that alleged breach.
Chief Supt Sheil was the officer, making the second complaint and, as he was the appointing officer, had acted as judge in the inquiry.
The defence stated that the wheels of natural justice were observed and that a second investigation was not necessary.
The hearing continues before Mr Justice McCracken.