Shortt case Garda fails to get suspension lifted

A challenge by a Co Donegal garda to her suspension which came into effect the day after the Court of Criminal Appeal certified…

A challenge by a Co Donegal garda to her suspension which came into effect the day after the Court of Criminal Appeal certified a miscarriage of justice in the case of Co Donegal nightclub owner Frank Shortt was dismissed by the High Court today.

Garda Martina Fowley was also ordered to pay the costs of her unsuccessful action, which could be as high as €100,000. However, a stay on the costs order was granted pending an appeal.

The Garda authorities had argued the suspension was justified in the light of remarks made by the CCA about Ms Fowley in relation to her involvement in an undercover Garda operation carried out at Mr Shortt's Point Inn nightclub at Quigley's Point, Inishowen in 1992.

Among other comments, the CCA had referred to Ms Fowley apparently countersigning notes related to the Point Inn operation of Det Garda Noel McMahon. The CCA found that Det McMahon and Superintendent Kevin Lennon had invented and deliberately suppressed evidence for the trial of Mr Shortt.

READ MORE

Mr Shortt served a three-year prison sentence after being convicted of allowing the sale of drugs at the Point Inn. His conviction was quashed in November 2000 with no opposition from the DPP and on July 31st last the CCA certified a miscarriage of justice in the case.

It was claimed by Ms Fowley that her three-month suspension in the immediate aftermath of the CCA decision was a "PR exercise" by the garda authorities. She claimed she was informed of her suspension by phone at 8.40 p.m. on August 1st, shortly before it was broadcast on the RTE TV 9pm news. Last month, she was served with a further three-month suspension order.

In his judgment turning down Ms Fowley's judicial review challenge, Mr Justice O Caoimh was critical of the manner in which the decision to suspend was communicated to her, saying lacked respect for her. He was satisfied the decision was effected with particular haste and "should not have had to be communicated in the manner in which it was communicated".

However, he was satisfied the decision to suspend was not punitive in nature and could not be considered as in any way prejudging the disciplinary process which was now under way. In all the circumstances, he rejected her challenge.