Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
1.������ This is an application for an interlocutory injunction requiring the Commissioner of An Garda S�och�na to restore to duty a Garda Superintendent who has been suspended on pay pending the outcome of two ongoing criminal investigations, a disciplinary enquiry upon which a Board of Inquiry has been convened, and a further disciplinary investigation into further allegations.
2.������ Mr. Louis McEntagart S.C., for the plaintiff, prefers to characterise the application as - or insists that it is, as it is formulated in the notice of motion - an application for an injunction restraining the Commissioner from continuing the suspension and for an order �mandating and directing the [Commissioner] to forthwith lift the suspension �, but it seems to me that it amounts to the same thing.
4.������ The plaintiff is a member of An Garda S�och�na of about 30 years standing.� He rose through the ranks to Superintendent, in which rank he has served since 2016.� Superintendent O�Neill has served in a number of stations, mostly in the Limerick Division.
5.������ On the morning of 15th May, 2019 Superintendent O�Neill was arrested at home, pursuant to s. 4(3) of the Criminal Law Act, 1997, on suspicion that he had committed an offence contrary to s. 62 of the Garda S�och�na Act 2005 - the disclosure of information obtained in the course of carrying out his duties which was likely to have a harmful effect - and taken to Athlone Garda Station.� At the same time, on the authority of a warrant signed by a judge of a District Court, his home was searched, and a number of electronic devices were seized.
8.������ When Superintendent O�Neill arrived in Athlone Garda Station at 7.45 a.m. on the morning of 16th May, 2019, he was detained pursuant to s. 4 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1984 - initially for a period of six hours on the authorisation of the member in charge, and then for further periods of six hours and twelve hours on the direction of a Superintendent and a Chief Superintendent - for the investigation of the suspected offence contrary to s. 62 of the Act of 2005.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.