The State is no longer seeking the return to light duties of a detective garda who secured a £180,000 settlement following leg injuries he received from the accidental discharge of a sub-machine-gun in his own kitchen, the High Court was told yesterday.
Det Garda Martin Conneely, of Ervallagh, Roundstone, Co Galway, claimed he was seriously injured when a Garda Uzi sub machine-gun was discharged in his home on February 20th, 1995.
He had been detailed to accompany another detective from Castlebar station to Mullingar and they called to Garda Conneely's home where the gun was accidentally discharged and he was shot in the left leg.
Det Garda Conneely, in an affidavit, claimed he was not only physically injured but suffered psychological damage and would never be able to serve again. He claimed that last year the State agreed to give him £180,000, his legal costs and sick pay up to retirement in November 2000. However, in February this year, he was told to return for duty.
Yesterday's application was for an order restraining the State from requesting Det Garda Conneely to attend for duty.
Mr Frank Clarke SC, for Det Garda Conneely, told Ms Justice Macken the State was contesting the garda's version of the terms of settlement. There was a conflict of fact between the senior counsel who had appeared for the parties in the claim and, unfortunately, the settlement had not been reduced to writing.
The matter had since been complicated by the proposal that Det Garda Conneely report for light duty. It was this which had given rise to the present application.
Mr Clarke said matters had changed following receipt of an affidavit from the Garda surgeon, Dr Gerald McCarthy, who had seen Det Garda Conneely.
In the affidavit, the doctor said, following a psychiatric report on the garda which found a return to duty would activate his depression and anxiety, he had decided the garda should be discharged from service on medical grounds.
Mr Henry Abbott SC, for the State, said he could confirm the process for Garda Conneely's discharge had started.
Mr Clarke said it appeared his motion was not now relevant and he wished to consider the matter further. Ms Justice Macken said she would adjourn the matter to April 19th.