Gardai allowed to challenge exclusion from certain duties

TWO Arklow based gardai have claimed in the High Court that they are being discriminated against by being confined to indoor …

TWO Arklow based gardai have claimed in the High Court that they are being discriminated against by being confined to indoor work and excluded from certain duties.

Mr Justice Kelly gave leave to Garda Michael Murphy and Garda Vincent Whelan to seek a number of orders against the Garda Commissioner by way of judicial review.

The two gardai want orders quashing a decision of the Commissioner, or one of his deputed members, confining them to indoor duties, and requiring the Commissioner to deal with their complaints of discrimination against them.

They were also given leave to seek an injunction restraining the Commissioner from confining them to indoor duties pending the hearing of their application.

READ MORE

They claim no reasons have been given for the unilateral and unfair imposition of confinement to indoor duties.

Mr Patrick Keane SC, who was with Mr Richard McDonnell, counsel for the applicants, said the two cases were similar.

Garda Michael Murphy, in an affidavit, referred to previous judicial review proceedings between the sides. Following the "capitulation" of the respondent in relation to the other proceedings, he expected to resume his usual full range of duties as a garda at Arklow station. These included patrol car duty, investigation of crime, escorts and other related matters.

On November 29th last, a sergeant informed him that on and from that date, he would be confined to the Garda station, performing a limited range of office type duties and nothing more.

Garda Murphy said Garda Whelan and himself had complied properly with the force's grievance procedure but the Commissioner and assistant Commissioners were unprepared to deal with the grievances.

Garda Whelan and Garda Murphy had been given to understand that a Garda code, in relation to members being stationed within a 20 mile radius of their own homes and of their in laws, was being revoked and he had no opportunity to challenge it.