An action in which a dismissed Garda detective sergeant is seeking to overturn adverse findings made against him by the Morris tribunal has opened before the High Court.
Former Det Sgt John White is seeking orders quashing the decision of the tribunal report on the Garda investigation into an arson attack on a mobile phone mast site at Ardara, Co Donegal, in October and November 1996.
The Morris tribunal report found that it was Det Sgt White who caused a device to be placed on the mast.
Mr White, who has protested his innocence, claims the tribunal has breached his constitutional rights and was biased in its dealings with him.
After the report was published, he was dismissed from the Garda Síochána and, he claims, a heavy personal, medical and financial toll had been exacted on himself and his family. He had also been refused most of his legal costs of dealing with the tribunal and is asking the High Court to direct that costs be awarded to him.
Mr White wants the court to overturn the tribunal finding that he was in charge of the investigation into the arson attack and that he had failed to act as an investigating officer would have been expected to act.
He also wants an order quashing the finding that he had rushed the arrest of suspects following the discovery of an apparent device at the scene in November 1996.
The former detective claims there is no evidence that he had engaged in wrongdoing and had caused the device to be placed on the mast for the purposes of effecting arrests of certain persons under section 30 of the Offences Against the State Act.
Among a number of other findings which he is also seeking to have quashed is the finding that his own account of his involvement in the investigation into the arson attack was riddled with inconsistencies and could not be accepted. He also disputes findings that he manipulated the investigation and, in particular, Supt Denis Cullinane.
Opening the case yesterday, Cormac Ó Dúlacháin SC said that before the tribunal report was issued, his client should have been afforded the opportunity to reply to the "circumstantial" evidence against him.
The first time Mr White became aware that criticism of him was based on circumstantial evidence was when the tribunal report was published, Mr Ó Dúlacháin said. Certain principles had grown up around tribunals which had effectively become statutory provisions, he added.
These principles included that parties, against whom adverse findings may be found, should be notified of that possibility. Failure to notify deprived a person of their constitutional right to vindicate their good name.
The case continues before Mr Justice John MacMenamin.