The High Court is being asked to dismiss for delay a case initiated by a former garda 19 years ago, alleging he was pushed out of the force as a result of allegations he made about senior officers.
Retired Garda John (Jack) Doyle (67), who was stationed in Blarney, Co Cork, has sued the Garda Commissioner, the Minister for Justice and the Attorney General. He is separately seeking judgement for his claim in default of a defence being filed by the defendants.
He claims he was wrongfully forced to retire on medical grounds in 1999 after making claims that senior officers were involved in allowing drugs to get into the country and on to drug dealers despite information which led to seizures.
The events allegedly occurred between 1993 and 1999 and were aired on RTÉ's Primetime in 2001, the court heard.
He also made complaints to various State bodies after bringing his proceedings but no action was recommended. No further action was also recommended as recently as 2016 following an investigation by an independent barrister appointed by the Minister for Justice in 2014.
Strike-out-for delay application
He claims he was victimised for raising questions about what was happening while in the force, and further victimised by the gardaí blocking his efforts to get work after he left. He claims his health was devastated by what happened.
On Friday, Mr Justice Conor Dignam reserved judgement on the State parties' strike-out-for- delay application.
Earlier, Oisin Collins SC, for the State parties, said Mr Doyle was essentially claiming a conspiracy in the force because, when he had raised concerns internally about drugs being allowed to get through by gardaí, nothing was done.
He was also saying it was only when he went to the press that he was "retired out in a ready up" by senior figures in the force, counsel said.
However, the delay in prosecuting his case, initiated in 2003, was inordinate and inexcusable, and it should be dismissed, counsel said.
There was a three-year delay in issuing his writ, followed by a 15-year delay in issuing his statement of claim and another two years before certain replies to queries from the defendants were provided, he said.
Mr Doyle denies delay and says, among other things, that after initiating proceedings in 2003 he hoped his concerns could be addressed through alternative avenues including the Garda Ombudsman and the Minister for Justice.
Witnesses
Mr Quinn said his side was seriously prejudiced by the delay for reasons including the deaths of two of some proposed 36 witnesses who would be required to give oral evidence.
Other witnesses were either ill or elderly with memory impairment difficulties. Certain records required for the defence are no longer available for reasons including that they were lost when there was an arson attack on Blarney Garda station in 2008.
There was a very real prejudice and risk of an unfair trial if it goes ahead, counsel said.
Miriam Reilly SC, for Mr Doyle, said the delay was excusable in the context of the failure of the defendants to put in a defence to the original plenary summons in the case. The defence had never said the allegations Mr Doyle raised were not true, she said.
It was also in the context that Mr Doyle was seeking to bring his concerns to various State bodies which also made the delay excusable.
Regarding the unavailability of witnesses due to death and infirmity of others, counsel said the State had every opportunity to gather evidence over the last 20 years because it was fully aware of the allegations from when they were aired by Primetime in 2001.
There was nothing to back up the claims in an affidavit filed by the gardaí that certain witnesses were ill or infirm and these were matters which could be properly tested at the hearing of the action, she said.
