High Court of Ireland Decisions

1. This application is made against a background of considerable dissension within the Garda Siochana concerning staff representation. The affidavits document the long history on attempts on the part of different Ministers for Justice to resolve the dispute. But to date efforts at mediation, conciliation and arbitration have all failed.

2. It was obviously not in the public interest that open warfare in the national police force should continue. The Minister therefore decided to take her own action and introduced legislation in the Dail making changes in the representation arrangements. A Bill with that end in view was introduced in March and it was intended that it would be enacted into law in its existing or amended form before the summer recess. If that had happened all the existing Garda Siochana (Associations) Regulations would have ceased to have effect though without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under them and as a consequence a September election could not have validly taken place. Elections under the new arrangements would be held in March 1997.

3. For various reasons the legislation was not passed at the time of the Dail recess but of course it is intended to proceed with the Bill when the Dail resumes.

4. In this situation the Minister was faced with a dilemma. She obviously considered that existing difficulties could be exacerbated if elections under the old regulations were allowed to proceed in September and the results effectively set at nought within a few months if new elections under the new arrangements took place in March 1997. She decided, rightly or wrongly, that she was empowered under existing legislation to make new amending regulations altering the requirement for elections in September and substituting an election for March 1997. She duly made such regulations on the 24th July, 1996. Leaving aside constitutional arguments and arguments based on the fact that the election process had already begun at the date of the regulations, Mr. McGonigal for the Defendants submits that there is in fact no power for the Minister to make any regulations relating to elections. He argues that even if such a power was contained in the original Section 13 of the Garda Siochana Act, 1924 it was removed by the amended Section 13 inserted by the Garda Siochana Act, 1977.

5. I would agree that on a literal reading of the amended Section 13 there may be room for doubt. But I am only concerned with whether there is an arguable case. Amending regulations have been made before without objection altering election arrangements. Furthermore, a strong case can be made that the Minister can invoke Section 14 of the Police Force Amalgamation Act, 1925. That Act post-dated the 1924 Act and of course pre-dated the 1977 Act.

6. It would not be appropriate to consider constitutional issues at an interlocutory stage unless the Minister's regulations were manifestly unconstitutional. I am quite satisfied that that is not the case here.

7. As to whether the fact that the electoral process was already in train is relevant is really a matter for the ultimate trial. The Minister has made what is prima facie a lawful set of regulations. The Defendants have nothing more than an arguable case that they are ultra vires. There is therefore clearly a serious issue to be tried.

8. I now have to consider whether an injunction as a remedy is appropriate and, if so, whether the balance of convenience favours the granting of it.

9. Subject to balance of convenience, I think that an injunction would be appropriate. The regulations were designed to prevent a September election. The only way that object can be achieved in aid of the regulations is by injunction.

10. Furthermore, I am of opinion that the balance of convenience is in favour of granting it. The Garda Siochana is a very special category of public servants having responsibility for public security. The Minister's fears of the effect of double elections are well founded in my view.

11. I think it likely that the President would grant an early date for the hearing of this case given its nature and the fact that it is largely determinable by legal argument. Very little inconvenience would therefore be caused to the Defendants by the type of injunction being sought by the Plaintiff. If the Minister ultimately loses the case, the election will take effect.

12. I will therefore grant the relief sought.