A MARRIED Garda couple have strenuously denied being involved in attempts to pervert the course of justice by allegedly unlawfully interfering in potential or pending court summonses for road offences.
Retired Superintendent Eamon OāNeill and serving Sergeant Anne-Marie Hassett, Henry Street Garda Station, are on trial along with three serving Garda colleagues, Sergeant Michelle Leahy, Roxboro Road Garda Station; Garda Tom McGlinchey, Murroe Garda Station; and Garda Colm Geary, Ennis Garda Station.
All five accused deny the charges and when contacted by detectives attached to the Garda National Bureau of Criminal Investigation (GNBCI) presented themselves for voluntary interview, under caution, in 2020.
They were all later charged with a total of 39 offences collectively in May 2021.
The court heard evidence that civilians and other GardaĆ, including senior ranking officers, contacted Superintendent OāNeill by mobile phone asking if anything could be done in respect of road traffic summonses issued to motorists.
Superintendent OāNeill is alleged to have passed the requests to Garda McGlinchey and Garda Geary, who, in turn, allegedly passed the requests onto the prosecuting GardĆ”Ć, and or in the case of Garda McGlinchey, who also allegedly passed the request to Sergeant Leahy, who was a court presenter at the time, with a view to having the cases struck out or withdrawn.
The court was shown a text message sent by Sergeant Hassett’s phone to Sergeant Patricia Ryan, Limerick Roads Policing Unit, asking if she could use her discretion in a potential prosecution of a speeding case of a person known to her husband, Superintendent OāNeill.
Sergeant Ryan replied that she could not.
Sergeant Hassett is accused of three offences contrary to Common Law.
During her voluntary interview under caution, Sergeant Hassett handed a prepared statement to her GNBCI interviewers in which she strenuously denied all allegations against her.
āAny communications I had with my colleagues in relation to alleged offences, committed by civilians or others, was in the bona fide pursuit of the long established custom and practise, by members of Garda Siochana, in assisting prosecuting members to exercise properly and appropriately their discretion, as to whether or not to prosecute, by furnishing them with such further information in relation to the alleged culprit which I considered appropriate,ā stated Sergeant Hassett.
Sergeant Hassett said she communicated with colleagues about such matters so that colleagues could āarrive at a practical, prudent, and balance judgement, in the interest of the common good”.
Sergeant Hassett said she was also guided “with particular regard to the principlesā set out in the ‘Discretionary Powers of An Garda Siochana’, āwhich is extracted from a report made by Assistant Commissioner John O’Mahony in 2013″.
Sergeant Hassett said that any actions on her part āconformed” with the “principles and standards outlinedā in the document.
āDuring my time in service with An Garda SĆochĆ”na, I have also received similar representations from my colleagues,ā said Sergeant Hassett .
She added that she was also āconscious of the prosecution guidelines of the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions, particularly the proviso, āit is not the rule that all offences for which there is sufficient evidence must automatically be prosecutedāā.
Sergeant Hassett said: āThere are a large number of factors to be taken into account in deciding whether the public interest requires a prosecution. In particular the DPP’s guidelines state that one of the factors to be taken into account is whether the consequences of a prosecution or a conviction would be disproportionately harsh or oppressive in the particular circumstances of the offender.ā
She said any alleged communications she had with her colleagues were āin keepingā with the custom of applying discretion that has also been āexercised by even the most senior ranks within the forceā.
Mr OāNeill, who participated in a separate voluntarily interview under caution with GNBCI, stated then that “the involvement of members of An Garda SĆochĆ”na, in particular those of high rank, including Superintendents, in dealing with fixed charge penalty notices … is not a criminal offence and never was a criminal offence”.
“Indeed, internal circulars and reports within An Garda SĆochĆ”na allow for such behaviour,ā Mr OāNeill added.
āDiscretion is part of good policing, and the cultivation of good community relations, which is fundamental to the work of An Garda SĆochĆ”na,ā Mr OāNeill argued.
The court heard evidence that civilians and other GardaĆ, including senior ranking officers, contacted Superintendent OāNeill asking if anything could be done in respect of summonses pending.
The court heard that Garda Geary and Garda McGlinchey told GNBCI that they received text messages from Superintendent OāNeill in respect of motorists summonses; the two GardaĆ said they passed these requests, on behalf of Superintendent OāNeill, onto the prosecuting Garda in each case with a view to having the case āsquaredā.
Sergeant Leahy, who was in a position of prosecuting cases before the district court, told investigating GardaĆ that she received text messages through Garda McGlinchey with queries from Superintendent OāNeill, about what she believed were requests to withdraw or strike out court summonses.
Carl Hanahoe, senior prosecuting counsel, told the jury at the outset of the trial: āWhat all of the offences have in common is the interference of involvement of Eamon OāNeill.ā
The trial, which is in its fifth week, continues.