The Minister for Justice, Mr John O'Donoghue, is expected to bring formally to the Cabinet over coming days the case of Mr William Geary, who was dismissed as a commissioned officer of the Garda in 1928. Mr Geary, who is now in his 101st year and living in the United States, has steadfastly proclaimed his innocence of the charge levelled against him - more than 70 years ago - that he accepted a bribe from the IRA whilst serving as a superintendent in Co Clare.
Over the decades, Mr Geary has sought access to the information upon which he was dismissed by order of the Executive Council. The Taoiseach, Mr Ahern, is understood to have personally taken an interest in Mr Geary's case with the result that most of the relevant files were released to him earlier this year. It was a commendable and humanitarian gesture, which set aside bureaucratic regulation, in order to help an elderly man whose time must be limited.
The detail in the files, as published some weeks ago in this newspaper, shows how Mr Geary came under suspicion discharging a difficult policing task in the turbulent early years of the State. But the picture is far from conclusive and the allegations do not stand scrutiny. Indeed, there are serious and obvious inconsistencies in the case assembled by Mr Geary's superiors at the time. If it were to be presented in a court or similar tribunal today it would be demolished by any junior lawyer in a matter of minutes.
The files also confirm Mr Geary's contention that he was denied due process. He sought and was denied legal representation while effectively confined in the Officers' Mess in the Phoenix Park Depot. He was not given the opportunity to rebut such evidence as his superiors believed they had. He never had a chance to confront his accusers in any forum.
There can be little doubt that the law is now on William Geary's side. The precedent has been set in the case of Garvey v Ireland in which former Commissioner, Edmund Garvey, sued the State after he had been dismissed in 1977, under the same provisions of the Garda Siochana Act, by Mr Jack Lynch's Government. If Mr Geary were to take his case to the courts, it would follow that, like Mr Garvey, he would be found to have been denied natural justice. His dismissal would have to be judged invalid and for purposes of compensation he would have to be deemed to be reinstated.
Mr Geary has been reluctant to take the legal route. He wishes to have no dispute with the Government or to become embroiled in proceedings. He has waived his rights to monetary compensation, beyond seeking the return of monies which he contributed to his pension fund between 1922 and 1928. It is to be hoped therefore that Mr O'Donoghue's recommendations to the Cabinet will not fall short of a complete restoration of Mr Geary's honour and an unqualified acknowledgment that the case made against him in 1928 was spurious. It would be wrong to oblige a man of Mr Geary's years to go to the courts. If he is compelled to do so, he undoubtedly will. And there can be little, if any, doubt as to what the outcome would be. A frank acknowledgment that an injustice was done in 1928 would be both generous and pragmatic.