A former garda who was dismissed by the Garda Commissioner eight years ago lost his application yesterday to have the decision declared invalid.
Mr Michael Hynes had challenged in the High Court the decision of a Garda tribunal of inquiry which concluded he had engaged in conduct prejudicial to discipline or likely to bring discredit to the force.
Mr Hynes is originally from Kinvara, Co Galway, but now lives in Newry, Co Down, where he manages a hypnotist for a living.
On October 12th, 1988, he was served with a discipline form alleging 11 breaches of discipline. The judge said he was concerned with only two of the alleged breaches.
The first alleged the garda had forced his way into the home of Mr Augustine Broughan and his wife at Griffith Avenue Extension, Finglas, Dublin, on January 14th, 1987, and terrorised Mrs Broughan and her two daughters by shouting: "I want the bastard. I want the money. When I get my hands on him I'll kill him."
The second alleged that he assaulted Mr Broughan (60) on January 22nd, 1987, outside the Bank of Ireland at Finglas Shopping Centre, Dublin.
Following the tribunal's finding, and a subsequent appeal board examination, Mr Hynes was dismissed from the force on May 17th, 1990. Before that - on December 7th, 1987 - he was prosecuted for assaulting Mr Broughan but the complaint was dismissed by the District Court on its merits.
Mr Hynes argued that the disciplinary inquiry ought not to have heard any evidence relating to his alleged breach of discipline, as at the time of the inquiry he had already been acquitted of the charge of committing the assault on Mr Broughan. When the matter came before the appeals board, it affirmed the breach of discipline in respect of terrorising Mrs Broughan and her daughters and revoked the decision to find Mr Hynes in breach of discipline in regard to the alleged assault on Mr Broughan.
Mr Justice McCracken said he had no doubt that had Mr Hynes taken judicial review proceedings to prohibit the disciplinary tribunal from holding its inquiry, it would have been prevented from considering the assault on Mr Broughan. But equally he had no doubt that the court would have allowed the inquiry to continue in relation to the other alleged breaches, including that of terrorising Mrs Broughan and her daughters.
However, Mr Hynes had chosen not to take this course but went before the board of inquiry, disputing the charges on their merits. At the board of appeal stage, Mr Hynes was represented by counsel who argued that the "terrorising" charge, on the basis of the evidence, did not justify the tribunal's finding. But the appeals board had found him guilty of the terrorising count and overruled the decision of the board of inquiry in regard to the assault charge.
Mr Justice McCracken said it was not open to Mr Hynes to come into court six years later and argue that the entire proceedings were null and void. The judge said he had also taken into account the fact that Mr Hynes had not chosen to give evidence in the High Court proceedings.
He said that while the court had a duty to ensure fair procedures were applied in disciplinary proceedings against Mr Hynes, it also had a duty to ensure the public was protected. He believed it would be in breach of the court's duty to make declarations in relation to a hearing that took place some eight years ago, which was unchallenged for six years.