THE Garda Commissioner told the High Court yesterday that he had the right to require a member of the force to identify an informant.
The Commissioner, Mr Patrick Byrne, was giving evidence in proceedings brought by two detective gardai who claim they should not be compelled to name their informant in relation to a search for drugs carried out at a Dublin house and hotel in 1988.
Det Gardai Colm Church and Raymond Murray are seeking an injunction to restrain the Commissioner from dismissing them. They want a declaration that their refusal to name their informant is not a breach of discipline.
Mr Byrne told the court the Garda authorities were being asked to accept blindly that the actions of the two detectives resulted from genuine information and that it was properly evaluated and analysed by them.
The refusal of the two men to obey a direct order from the Commissioner in 1993 was a challenge to his authority.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Costello, said he would give his decision next Tuesday.
Garda Church, in an affidavit, said he feared that, if he was compelled to reveal the informant's identity, the informant would be subjected to considerable personal danger. It might also have serious consequences for his own safety and that of his family.
He and Garda Murray were attached to the drugs squad. Cn September 12th, 1988 they and other gardai searched Sachs Hotel, Morehampton Road, Dublin and a house at Sycamore Drive, Cabinteely, Co Dublin.
The searches were on foot of, confidential information from an informant that drugs might be found at either of the premises. No drugs were found.
He received telephone calls from Mr Philip Smyth, the hotel owner, who said he believed the information had been given maliciously and demanded to know the source.
Garda Church said he, refused to give the information, in accordance with long established principles. He believed these established legal privilege to a garda not to disclose the identity of an informant.
In 1991, he said, civil proceedings were instituted in the High Court on behalf of Genport Ltd (which operates Sachs hotel) and Ms Brenda Elood, a hotel employee. He and Garda Murray were named as defendants.
They came under repeated pressure from the Commissioner's office to reveal the informant's identity, but refused.
Garda Church said he received the information in 1988. If a circular issued by the Commissioner five years later had been in force in 1988 he (Garda Church) would have been obliged to tell the informant that he (the garda) could be required to reveal the informant's identity to his superiors.
The court was told that former Commissioner Patrick Culligan had ordered the two detectives to, disclose to a chief superintendent the identity of the informant.
The letter said: "While this information may have been received by you in good faith, there are circumstances to indicate that it may have been supplied for malicious motives.
"This information is required by me in order to ensure proper direction and control of the Force and, in particular, the proper investigation of alleged public mischief by a person or persons unknown.
Mr Byrne, in an affidavit made when he was an Assistant Commissioner, said the central issue was the Commissioner's desire to ensure investigation of suspected criminal activities by the person who supplied this information.
Garda Church had indicated in an entry in a Garda record made within three days of the search that the information given to him might have been a deliberate attempt to discredit Ms Flood and her employer.
The good faith of the two detectives in carrying out the searches was not at issue.
An Assistant Commissioner's letter written in July, 1989 stated that a serious point of principle was involved that Det Garda Church did not trust the discretion/judgment of his superiors and was in effect saying that he alone had the right to assess his informant's information. This could not be acceded to and was contrary to good order and discipline.
The letter stated that this was not a normal case of protecting a source of information. This was a case of protecting someone who either alone or with others, innocently or otherwise, fed false information to the Garda.
Mr Byrne said it had never been Garda practice that information in relation to the commission of a crime was the personal property of a garda to be dealt with as he would.