The High Court has rejected an application by a Garda to prevent the Garda Complaints Board taking further steps on foot of complaints made against him regarding the policing of the anti-globalisation march in Dublin on May 6th 2002.
Garda Donal Cocoran had brought judicial review proceedings against the Garda Complaints Board and its chairman, Mr Gordon Holmes.
In a reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice Murphy said four complaints against Garda Corcoran were referred to the DPP and a part of a fourth was referred to the GCB, a statutory body established to deal with complaints made against gardai.
Six months after the march of May 2002, Mr Holmes had given a radio interview on behalf of the board as a whole. Garda Corcoran had argued the interview constituted bias and prejudgment and that it was clear Mr Holmes had disclosed the nature of certain video tape evidence which came to light in the course of the investigation.
Garda Corcoran had said Mr Holmes had judged the video tape evidence by publicly disclosing his view that the gardai utilised their batons with "excessive enthusiasm".
Mr Holmes had also said: "It's something we didn't like".
This was highly inappropriate and a prejudgment, Garda Corcoran had complained.
While the GCB had said neither Mr Holmes nor its chief executive would be sitting in judgment and would not be part of any tribunal established, Garda Corcoran submitted that the board in its entirety had made the statement complained of.
Mr Justice Murphy said the net issue in the hearing was whether the general remarks made by the chairman constituted a prejudgment of issues which were to be determined by a tribunal, as yet undetermined, of the board which would not include him.
While it was accepted the chairman made the remarks following a meeting of the CGB and with its authority, the remarks related to general matters concerning the investigation of the complaints in relation to the "Reclaim the Streets" march. They did not refer to Garda Corcoran nor could he be identified in relation to them, the judge said. Moreover, it seemed clear the remarks related to the investigation stage and not the adjudication stage following upon the complaints.
It seemed clear that the adjudication of the part of the complaint referred to the Board, or any particular complaint, against Garda Corcoran had not yet been either referred to any tribunal nor prejudged by the remarks made by Mr Holmes or a press release issued by the GCB.
On the basis of legal authorities referred to during the case, there was no evidence of bias or
prejudgment in relation to the adjudication process which had not yet begun, the judge said. In the circumstances, he was refusing the application.