A legal battle initiated by an Army captain over the selection of the Guard Captain at Leinster House has been ruled out by the High Court. The complainant, Capt Alan Kearney stationed at the Curragh training base in Co Kildare, had requested a revocation of the decision made by the Commission of the Houses of Oireachtas (CHO) not to push ahead with his nomination for the mentioned position on the 26th of November.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter weighed the case on Thursday and found no grounds for any of Kearney’s filed claims. The defending parties included the CHO, An Taoiseach (who finalises the appointments), the Minister for Justice, the State, and the Garda Commissioner. The Garda Commissioner was accused of failing to process Kearney’s security clearance for the position in a swift manner.
The guard’s captain role is sensitive and involves specific ceremonial duties within the Oireachtas. The court lifted an injunction that had been preventing the role from being filled on an interim basis until Kearney’s case was settled.
Kearney argues that not moving forward with his nomination violated fair procedures and his constitutional right to a good reputation. He contended that his rights were being contravened due to a clandestine, undisclosed security clearance process facilitated by the CHO and the Gardaí. However, these allegations were refuted by the respondents.
Justice Ferriter mentioned that Kearney applied for the position, underwent an interview, and was identified as the top candidate, conditional upon successful security checks and Garda clearance, in March 2021. During this process, an ongoing military police investigation into alleged wrongdoings concerning Army ammunition involving Kearney came to light.
In November 2021, the CHO decided to cancel his candidacy as the necessary clearance had not been received. In December 2021, the gardaí wrote to the CHO, confirming they couldn’t provide Kearney with the required security clearance.
The Honourable Justice Ferriter ruled in his decision that despite agreeing that Capt Kearney’s case could be subjected to a judicial review, there should be clear restrictions on a court’s right to meddle in matters concerning recruitment processes.
He reasoned that for such procedures, aside from potential exceptions, no inherent rights are involved. Capt Kearney was not persuaded to forfeit any current privilege or right in order to participate in the selection process.
Justice Ferriter concluded that the Community Health Organisation (CHO) had satisfactorily met any transparency requirements of the recruitment. He dismissed Capt Kearney’s claims of necessary transparency or any fundamental injustice in the process, noting that no arbitrary or capricious actions were evident.
He refuted Capt Kearney’s claims of being denied security clearance due to some insinuating covert procedure. The additional security clearance procedure alongside Garda vetting was deemed by the Judge as an “eminently rational move” considering the security-sensitive nature of the public service post. He believed that, from any reasonable perspective, this cannot be seen as a new and unauthorized eligibility requirement for the role.
Moreover, there was “absolutely no proof” to back up Capt Kearney’s grave allegation that the Gardaí had tried to manipulate the CHO’s decision-making. The Judge affirmed that he found no evidence of such interference.
Justice Ferriter ruled that there was no foundation to Capt Kearney’s claim that his reputation was tarnished during the recruitment procedure or in the decisions that formed its basis. Furthermore, he declared that Capt Kearney’s allegations of data protection violations by the CHO in his case were not substantiated.