EXPLOSIVE CLAIMS | 

‘Senior Garda involved in import and distribution of illegal drugs’, High Court told

A judge heard allegations that a number of officers supervised the importation of drugs and controlled the flow of shipments to dealers

Today at 08:32

Explosive claims of garda collusion in the distribution of drugs have been made in the High Court.

A judge heard allegations that a number of officers supervised the importation of drugs and controlled the flow of shipments to dealers.

A detective sergeant, who later rose to a senior rank and is now retired, was identified in an affidavit as being “centrally involved”.

The affidavit was sworn by a person claiming to have worked in the drugs trade “under the supervision and instruction of An Garda Síochána, who controlled what drugs got to what dealers”.

Details of the allegations, which relate to the period between 1997 and 2014, were outlined in a ruling by Mr Justice Conor Dignam, in which the judge allowed the affidavit to be admitted in a civil action being taken against the garda commissioner by Jack Doyle (69), a former officer who was stationed in Blarney, Co Cork.

The affidavit lends credence to certain allegations made by Mr Doyle, who is suing for damages, claiming there was a conspiracy to force him into retirement in 1998 after he raised concerns that certain officers allowed criminals receive drug shipments.

Gardai directed drugs trade in Cork hears High Court

The former senior garda named in the affidavit – referred to as Detective Sergeant A by the judge – is one of six former gardaí who have claimed they cannot remember drugs operations in the south of the country and other alleged events described by Mr Doyle due to the passage of time or ill-health.

Lawyers for Mr Doyle say the affidavit wholly undermines Detective Sergeant A’s contention that he cannot remember various matters.

The individual making the fresh claims has not been publicly identified, but he is known to have come forward to Mr Doyle’s legal team after reading press reports about the case last year.

In the affidavit, he said he did not know Mr Doyle and never had any dealings with him.

However, he said he was intimately involved in the type of operations described by Mr Doyle and dealt with many of the same gardaí and criminals.

The man identified Detective Sergeant A as his “contact” and as the person who was “in charge and made all of the key decisions”.

He explained that Detective Sergeant A became less directly involved in 2001, handing over the direct role to another garda. However, he contends Detective Sergeant A “remained in control and was at various meetings and involved in various decisions and approvals in 2008 and 2012”.

Lawyers for the commissioner made an application last year to the court seeking the dismissal of Mr Doyle’s lawsuit, arguing there was a substantial risk there would not be a fair trial due to the passage of time. Some witnesses were said to be dead, some ill and others afflicted by memory loss.

The commissioner has not entered a defence in the case, claiming it has not been possible to do so. It was also argued that the case, initially filed in 2003, should be dismissed on the grounds of delay. A statement of claim was not filed until 2018.

However, before Mr Justice Dignam could rule on the dismissal application, lawyers for Mr Doyle informed the court that a person had come forward with new information. Mr Doyle’s lawyers applied for permission to adduce further evidence.

In an affidavit, Mr Doyle’s solicitor, Pat McMyler, of PA Dorrian & Co Solicitors, said that in light of the new allegations it was “beyond belief” that Detective Sergeant A would not have a sufficient recall of matters to deal with Mr Doyle’s claim.

“It is clear [Detective Sergeant A] was centrally involved with the same characters and the same modus operandi for some significant time after the dismissal of the plaintiff,” he said.

Lawyers for the commissioner questioned the relevance of the affidavit, describing its contents as “hearsay”, “extremely tangential” and almost all relating to a time after Mr Doyle was no longer a garda.

However, Mr Justice Dignam said he was satisfied leave to admit the further evidence should be granted.

He said matters alleged by Mr Doyle in relation to Detective Sergeant A were “a significant part” of his case and that the new allegations “would probably have an important influence on the court’s assessment of whether Detective Sergeant A’s lack of memory of these matters is as significant as claimed”.

The allegations at the heart of Mr Doyle’s lawsuit date back to the mid-1990s, when he claims to have recruited an informer who provided information about people in the drugs trade and planned shipments.

According to Mr Doyle, the informant had infiltrated a serious drugs gang, providing gardaí, including Detective Sergeant A, with information on major criminals. In time, Mr Doyle claims, the informant became a courier for the gang, bringing drugs into the country by ferry with the knowledge and agreement of more senior garda officers.

Mr Doyle alleges that a major dugs seizure in 1995 was staged and that only half of the consignment was seized. The remainder, he alleged, was allowed through to the drugs gang.

In his pleading, Mr Doyle alleges that a major dugs seizure in 1995 was staged and that only half of the consignment was seized. The remainder, he alleged, was allowed through to the drugs gang.

He claims that at the end of 1996, the informant provided him with information about drugs, including consignments of ecstasy and cocaine, getting through to gangs with the knowledge of gardaí, including Detective Sergeant A, and that while there had been opportunities to arrest some of the leading criminal figures, they were not arrested.

Mr Doyle also claims the informant told him a certain criminal “had a senior police officer in his pocket”.

In the action, Mr Doyle claims he resolved “to take action, in the public good” and contacted a friend who was a customs intelligence officer and spoke to a journalist. He alleges he was subsequently unlawfully retired on medical grounds in 1998 and this had a devastating impact on his health, made it difficult to obtain work and led to him having to sell his home.

The court has previously heard that part of the reason for the delay in proceeding with the case was that Mr Doyle sought to have his complaints examined via other avenues, including a complaint to the Garda Ombudsman, ruled inadmissible in 2007.

The commissioner also decided not to initiate an investigation. His complaint was also examined in 2014 as part of an independent review of multiple cases where allegations of garda misconduct or inadequacies were made. The review recommended no further action.

Mr Doyle’s counsel, Miriam Reilly SC, said it was inconceivable the State had not conducted an investigation to get to the bottom of things.

.