AN APPEAL BY a garda against his suspension as part of an investigation into the cancelling of traffic tickets has heard a claim that he was not given adequate reasons for his removal from his duties.

Today’s Court of Appeal hearing follows a High Court judgment which found that the suspension of a garda in Limerick as part of a large scale investigation was legally sound.

Paul Baynham, a garda who was stationed before his suspension in Limerick Roads Policing, has been suspended for more than four years. 

He is joined by three other gardaí who have brought separate High Court judicial review proceedings alleging their continued suspensions, arising out of investigations into the alleged so-called “squaring” of fixed charge penalty notices by a senior officer, are unlawful. The senior officer cannot be identified for legal reasons. 

Squaring is garda slang describing the quashing of traffic tickets. The investigation is being led by the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation (NBCI).

The judicial review of one of the gardaí, Garda Paul Baynham, was heard before Ms Justice Siobhán Phelan last year. 

Barrister Mark Harty SC with Elizabeth Hughes solicitors had asked the High Court to quash the Commissioner of An Garda Síochána’s November 2020 decisions to suspend them with basic pay and his later decisions to extend those suspensions. All four deny any wrongdoing and have remained suspended since 2020.

Today’s hearing in the Court of Appeal, was heard before the three judge panel of Mr. Justice Charles Meenan, Ms Justice Mary Faherty and Mr Justice Brian O’Moore.

Harty told the court that his case revolves around the argument that the case was unfair due to a lack of reasons given to Baynham about his suspension.

The barrister said that the High Court trial Judge, Ms Justice Phelan, erred because she “filled gaps in evidence”. 

Harty also said that approximately 130 gardaí who were interviewed by investigating detectives from the National Bureau of Criminal Investigation yet it was just a small number of gardaí suspended. 

The barrister also claimed that there were other gardaí who had “squared” tickets but they were not suspended. 

The key to Harty’s application was that when the garda was suspended he was not given adequate reasons as to why he was being taken off active duty. In administrative law previous cases have established a precedent whereby reasons must be given for why a body made its decision. 

The lawyer said there has not been enough information from An Garda Síochána and that this infringes the garda’s constitutional right to fair procedure.  

“Simply reciting you breached discipline, isn’t a reason for the suspension,” Harty said. 

In response Conor Power, senior counsel for the Garda Commissioner, said that Baynham knew why he was suspended and that this was enough reason.

Power told the court that there were a number of findings in the High Court that were not appealed by Baynham. He said that the previous case focused on “delay” as a key issue but that this had “fallen away”. 

The barrister for the Commissioner said that it was a “fanciful argument” for counsel for the suspended garda to claim that he did not know the nature of the allegations against him which then resulted in his suspension.

Power told the three judges that Baynham is being investigated for “perverting the course of justice” by squaring the tickets. He said that this was an allegation that cuts directly to the heart of his ability to do his job. 

All three judges questioned the Garda Commissioner’s barrister about how much information must be given to meet the need for an explanation of the reasons for the suspension.

Power responded: “he wants more reasons, he knows the reasons for his suspension”.

The three judges adjourned the case and reserved their judgment.