A young woman has been granted permission at the High Court to challenge a refusal of her “dream” job application to be a member of An Garda Síochána due to concerns about her “sphere of influence”. The young woman is seeking to quash a February 2025 decision by the Garda Commissioner, which stated she was “not generally suitable for such admission” due to vetting reasons, which would not be further detailed due to general data protection regulation (GDPR) reasons.The woman, who is in her early 20s, was represented by barrister Karl Monahan. She submitted that a formal appeal was lodged against the refusal in December 2025, which included an admission that her father’s cousin had criminal convictions and that this was a concern for her, as it could have been a factor in the refusal.She said she had minimal contact with her father and did not have further contact with her paternal family, was an independent person of “good character and integrity” with no convictions, nor any pending, who was also employed and in a structured daily routine.It is submitted that in the same month, the Garda replied stating that the “principle reason for the decision [of refusal] is the concern about your sphere of influence”.She said she was notified by phone last January by a chief superintendent that he was satisfied that procedures employed in the initial refusal were “correct” although the refusal decision was “not due to her”.During that conversation, the court has been told, despite the applicant’s requests, the concerns about her “sphere of influence” could not be released under GDPR concerns.Her legal team submits that it is a breach of her constitutional rights to discriminate based on a blood connection for which she has neither responsibility nor control.Monahan submitted to Judge Conleth Bradley that any person subject to an adverse public administrative decision should be adequately informed of the reasons underpinning it, and that it is incumbent on decision makers to “at least” disclose the essential rationale so it could be properly challenged.Monahan submitted that a person who may be adversely affected by a public law decision is entitled to be informed of the evidence which might adversely affect his client’s interests.He said his client was informed of “multiple people” that gave rise to concerns regarding her suitability to be a garda, but she was not provided with substantive information regarding the identity or nature of those people in her “sphere of influence”.Counsel said that this alleged failure by the force to provide requested information prevented his client from meaningfully understanding, or responding to, either the initial job refusal or any subsequent challenge, which amounted to a “name-only appeal”, depriving her of fair procedures.Bradley granted permission for the judicial review challenge and adjourned the case to next month.