Stroker v. Doherty [1990] IESC 4 (26th July, 1990)
The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Appeal Board and the Commissioner did not flagrantly reject or disregard fundamental reason or common sense, and thus was not unreasonable or ultra vires. The penalty of dismissal was within the discretion of the disciplinary authorities, and the High Court erred in substituting its own view.
- Citation
- [1990] IESC 4
- Parties
- Applicant/respondent: Thomas Stroker; Appellants: Edward J Doherty & Others
- Jurisdiction
- Ireland
- Procedural Posture
- Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; application for judicial review dismissed.
- Legal Topics
- Judicial Review, Disciplinary Proceedings, Unreasonableness Standard, Police Discipline
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas Stroker
Applicant/respondent
Edward J Doherty & Others
Appellants
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the decision of the Garda disciplinary tribunal and the Commissioner to dismiss the applicant was unreasonable or ultra vires and subject to judicial review
- 2 Whether the penalty imposed was appropriate and lawfully determined
Ratio Decidendi
The Supreme Court held that the decision of the Appeal Board and the Commissioner did not flagrantly reject or disregard fundamental reason or common sense, and thus was not unreasonable or ultra vires. The penalty of dismissal was within the discretion of the disciplinary authorities, and the High Court erred in substituting its own view.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed; High Court order set aside; application for judicial review dismissed.
Orders
- Set aside the order of the High Court.
- Dismiss the application for judicial review.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment