The High Court has ruled that Garda Superintendent, Mr Kevin Lennon, is not entitled to have the State fund his ongoing legal costs before the Morris tribunal.
The Morris tribunal is investigating a number of serious allegations against Mr Lennon in its inquiry into alleged Garda corruption in Co Donegal.
Supt Lennon has been suspended since August last. An earlier court hearing was told by Assistant Commissioner Fachtna Murphy that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Supt Lennon in March 2001 and were still in being. They related to matters in the Co Donegal division concerning explosive finds and other matter concerning breaches of discipline.
In his judgment rejecting Supt Lennon's application for the State to pay his ongoing legal costs, Mr Justice de Valera said the Supt had claimed that, when he joined the Garda force, it was understood and agreed that if circumstances arose whereby he would have his good name and reputation put at risk before a tribunal, he could be treated equally with all other members of the force.
The Commissioner had sought representation at the Morris tribunal for himself and certain named gardaí, including superintendents, but had declined to nominate Superintendent Lennon, the judge said. The Commissioner had applied certain criteria in making that decision.
The criteria concerned members of the force currently under suspension arising out of matters in the Morris tribunal terms of reference; members who were the subject of investigation whether internal or criminal and members who refused to co-operate with an internal investigation arising out of matters the subject of the tribunal hearing.
The Commissioner acknowledged that he was obliged to treat all members of the force equally within the law and had said that Supt Lennon had received equal treatment.
Mr Justice de Valera said it appeared the Commissioner's approach was a reasonable one. It was impossible or at least highly impractical for the Commissioner to provide representation or funds for separate garda representation at the Morris tribunal. There was no evidence that such funding or representation was an entitlement of any member either by right or custom.
Equality in the context of the proceedings meant equality of consideration but the Commissioner must be in a position to properly and effectively manage and control his force. He was entitled to examine the position of members under his direction and control and, after suitable consideration and investigation, to come to a conclusion that certain members at a certain stage must be treated differently from other members in a similar position. This did not constitute unequal treatment.
There had been no suggestion that there was anything improper in the manner in which the Commissioner drew up his criteria for inclusion in the representation provided by him. In these circumstances, the judge held that Superintedent Lennon's appeal failed. ends