THE Minister for Justice was entitled to an injunction restraining the Garda Representative Association from continuing with its election of regional representatives, the High Court decided yesterday.
But injunctions were not formally granted when Mr Eoin MacGonigal, counsel for the GRA, gave an undertaking that the counting of votes or further processing of the election would be put on hold until the outcome of the proceedings had been determined.
Mr Justice Geoghegan also heard that the parties had agreed to consolidate all proceedings into a form whereby the GRA would become the plaintiff in the action and the Minister the defendant.
Before the Minister's application for injunctions restraining the furtherance of the GRA elections, the association had instituted proceedings in which it challenged the constitutionality of the Minister's order deferring the September election until next March.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said the Minister's application had been made against a background of considerable dissension within the Garda Siochana concerning representation. All efforts at mediation, conciliation and arbitration had failed.
"It is not in the public interest that open warfare in the national police force should continue," he said.
He said the Minister had decided to introduce legislation in the Dail making changes in representation arrangements. If that Bill had become law before the summer recess all existing regulations regarding garda representation would have ceased to have effect without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under them.
If the Bill had been enacted the September elections could not have validly taken place and the election would have been held next March.
Mr Justice Geoghegan said Mrs Owen intended to proceed with the Bill and decided, rightly or wrongly, she was empowered under existing legislation to make new amending regulations changing elections from September to March.
He said Mr MacGonigal had submitted there was, in effect, no power for the Minister to make any regulations relating to elections and, while he agreed that on a literal reading of the legislation there might be room for doubt, he was only concerned about whether there was an arguable case to go to trial.
He said there was clearly a serious issue to be tried, and the granting of an injunction as a remedy was proper. Little inconvenience would be caused to the GRA by the type of injunction being sought by the Minister.
If the Minister ultimately lost the action the existing election procedure would be completed and would take effect.
Mr Michael Cush, counsel for the Minister, said the parties had agreed that orders relating to discovery and cross discovery of documentation could be made by the court to facilitate the possibility of an early trial.