Garvey v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Anor [2003] IEHC 130 (5 December 2003)

Garvey v. Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform & Anor [2003] IEHC 130 (5 December 2003)

The Court held that disciplinary proceedings arising from the same facts as a criminal acquittal are not per se unlawful or oppressive, provided fair procedures are observed and no objective bias or oppression is established. The Prison (Disciplinary Code for Officers) Rules, 1996, as applied, do not breach constitutional justice or natural justice. The applicant was not denied legal representation, and the process does not amount to double jeopardy or res judicata. The continued suspension is lawful pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.

Citation
[2003] IEHC 130
Parties
Applicant: Alan Garvey; First Respondent: Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform; Second Respondent: Governor of Mountjoy Prison; Notice Party: Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Disciplinary Proceedings, Natural Justice, Res Judicata, Double Jeopardy, Suspension From Employment, Right to Earn a Livelihood, Procedural Fairness, Bias in Decision Making
Administrative Law Employment Law Constitutional Law Disciplinary Proceedings Natural Justice Res Judicata Double Jeopardy Suspension From Employment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Garvey

Applicant

Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform

First Respondent

Governor of Mountjoy Prison

Second Respondent

Attorney General

Notice Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Judgment on Substantive Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether disciplinary proceedings based on facts identical to those in a criminal trial resulting in acquittal are permissible
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's suspension and continued disciplinary process are unreasonable, oppressive, or unconstitutional
  3. 3 Whether the Prison (Disciplinary Code for Officers) Rules, 1996 provide for fair procedures and independence

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that disciplinary proceedings arising from the same facts as a criminal acquittal are not per se unlawful or oppressive, provided fair procedures are observed and no objective bias or oppression is established. The Prison (Disciplinary Code for Officers) Rules, 1996, as applied, do not breach constitutional justice or natural justice. The applicant was not denied legal representation, and the process does not amount to double jeopardy or res judicata. The continued suspension is lawful pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Relief sought by the applicant is denied
  • Disciplinary proceedings may proceed