Sheriff v Corrigan and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Justice Denham |
| Judgment Date | 15 February 2000 |
| Neutral Citation | [2000] IESC 4 |
| Court | Supreme Court |
| Docket Number | No. 293/98 |
| Date | 15 February 2000 |
BETWEEN
AND
[2000] IESC 4
THE SUPREME COURT
Synopsis
Administrative Law
Administrative; judicial review; applicant had been assistant chief prison officer; applicant had written letter in official correspondence; letter had referred to colleague as "scab"; apology had been made by applicant after two years; assistant prison governor had made recommendation to Minister for Justice that applicant be demoted; applicant had been asked for his representations as to proposal of demotion; applicant had been downgraded to prison officer; High Court had refused relief; applicant appeals to Supreme Court; whether requirements of natural justice complied with; whether recommendation by assistant governor a breach of fair procedures.
Held: Appeal dismissed.
Sheriff v. Corrigan - Supreme Court: Keane C.J., Denham J., Barron J. - 15/02/2000 - [2001] 1 ILRM 67
The applicant had used the term “scab” in correspondence in reference to a colleague. Ultimately as a result the applicant was downgraded from the position of assistant chief officer to that of ordinary prison officer. The applicant sought to challenge the decision by way of judicial review. The applicant claimed, inter alia, that fair procedures had not been followed in reaching the decision to downgrade him. In particular the applicant claimed that certain documents and evidence were considered by the Minister in making the decision which were not made available to him and that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the offence in question. In the High Court Carney J dismissed the applicant’s claim. The applicant appealed. Denham J, delivering judgment, held that the applicant had been fully informed of the allegations being made against him and was given an opportunity to put forward his submissions. An oral hearing was not in this instance necessary. The penalty was not disproportionate to the offence. The requirements of natural justice were met and the appeal was therefore dismissed.
Citations:
SHERIFF V CORRIGAN UNREP CARNEY 31.7.1998 1998/30/12178 1999 ELR 146
EI CO LTD V KENNEDY 1968 IR 69
RULES FOR THE GOVT OF PRISONS 1947 S R & O 320/1947 RULE 99
GLEESON, STATE V MIN FOR DEFENCE 1976 IR 280
GALVIN V CHIEF APPEALS OFFICER 1997 3 IR 240
RULES FOR THE GOVT OF PRISONS 1947 S R & O 320/1947 RULE 82(1)
RULES FOR THE GOVT OF PRISONS 1947 S R & O 320/1947 RULE 100
RULES FOR THE GOVT OF PRISONS 1947 S R & O 320/1947 RULE 102
RULES FOR THE GOVT OF PRISONS 1947 S R & O 320/1947 RULE 125(1)
RULES FOR THE GOVT OF PRISONS 1947 S R & O 320/1947 RULE 125(2)
GALLAGHER, STATE V GOV OF PORTLAOISE PRISON UNREP FINLAY 18.5.1977 1977/4/656
GALLAGHER V CORRIGAN & MIN FOR JUSTICE UNREP BLAYNEY 1.2.1988 1988/2/284
HOGAN & MORGAN ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN IRELAND 3ED 566–567
R V BARNSLEY METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCIL EX-PARTE HOOK 1976 3 AER 452
R V NORTHUMBERLAND COMPENSATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL EX-PARTE SHAW 1952 1 AER 122
This is an appeal by the applicant/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the applicant from a decision of the High Court (Carney J.) dated 31st July, 1998. The facts were found by the learned High Court judge as follows:
"The catalyst to this particular justiciable controversy is a claim for expenses by someone other than the Applicant in the sum of £5.96."
The Applicant has been a prison officer for twenty-three and a half years since the 7th July, 1973 employed variously at Mountjoy Prison, Cork Prison, Portlaoise Prison and Shelton Abbey. In May 1985 he was promoted from the rank of prison officer to that of Assistant Chief Officer to that of Assistant Chief Officer and was stationed at Shelton Abbey Prison as Assistant Chief Officer since December 1990.
On or about the 9th day of June, 1994 prison officer Searmus Roche, submitted to the Applicant a subsistence form for payment of duty expenses in the sum of £5.94 and the Applicant certified the dated and times thereon as being correct. Later that evening Assistant Governor Whelan came to the Applicant with the said form and said that Clerk 1 Breen (hereinafter referred to as C1 Breen) was querying the details set out therein. Assistant Governor Whelan was given a comprehensive explanation of the contents of the form by the Applicant and he concurred in the same and on June 10th,1994 C1 Breen paid the subsistence amount due to Officer Roche.
On the 4th day of July, 1991, C1 Breen wrote to Assistant Governor Whelan and queried the subsistence which was paid to Officer Seamus Roche, the payment of which had already been approved by Assistant Governor Whelan and in fact paid out by C1 Breen. On the 27th day of July, 1994 the Applicant replied to Assistant Governor Whelan's communication in the following terms;
In answer to Scab Breen's report, I am at a loss to understand a number of very important points.
1. Is the Scab Breen implying that Officer S. Roche or myself were attempting to defraud the Minister for Justice or the State by deception.
2. Why did the Scab Breen pay the money to Officer S. Roche on the 10/6/94 if the subsistence form was not correct.
3. Why did it take the Scab Breen from the 10/6/94 until the 4/7/94 to question same.
My action on the date in question will stand up to any independent investigation. The Fraud Squad will not be necessary on this occasion.
Finally, I must point out for the benefit of the Scab Breen the proper spelling of name is as follows: SHERIFF.
In response the Applicant received an undated letter from Assistant Governor Whelan in the following terms:
Please explain why on the 27th July, 1994 when you replied to an official query from C1 Breen you referred to him as the Scab Breen.
your reply should be returned within seven days of receipt of this document, if you are unable to reply within this time you may apply for an extension of time stating the reasons for your request.
In answer to your official query which I received from Chief Officer O'Reilly, the answer is simple.
In April 1988 there was a dispute between the Department of Justice and the Prison Officers Association which I am proud to be a member. An official strike followed and Breen passed an official picker, a fact that cannot be disguised for the remainder of his life and he now must live with the rough stigma that is attached to the “scab”.
As an English speaking nation the word “scab” is part of our vocabulary and I as a member of this nation am entitled to use the word “scab” where appropriate.
Governor I must now refer you to the “Oxford Advanced learners Dictionary of Current English” where the meaning of the word “scab” will more than satisfy your official query.
I divert here for a moment to say that use of the word "scab" has once been considered in Irish case law. InE.I.Co. Limited v. Kennedy & Ors., (1968)Irish Reports page 69, Walsh J. said at page 91:-
“The use of words such as “scab” or “blacklag” are historically so associated with social ostracism and physical violence as to be far beyond anything which might be described as mere rudeness or impoliteness and go beyond what is permitted by law.”
The word was also considered in cases arising from the coal miners strike in the United Kingdom but I do not think those cases should be taken account of in litigation.
On the 1st September, 1994 Assistant Governor Whelan wrote to the Applicant as follows:
You are changed that on the 27th day of July, 1994 when replying to an official query from C1 Breen you showed total disrespect for him and the rank of Clerk 1 by referring to him as the Scab Breen. You are requested to reply to the charge.
The applicant was told to reply within seven days of receipt of the document but that if he was unable to reply he could apply for an extension. The applicant inquired as to the rule of the Statutory Rules and Orders No. 320 Rules for the Governments of Prisons, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as S.R. and O.1947 No. 320) under which it was intended to charge him. On 9th November, 1994 Assistant Governor Whelan informed him that he was charged under Rule 99 S.R. and O.1947 No. 320. In a strident reply the applicant queried the impartiality of the hearing and requested all original documents. By letter dated 20th February, 1995, which he received on 15th March, 1995, the applicant was informed by the Prisons Personnel Section of the Department of Justice:
"I am to refer to the queries put to you by Assistant Governor Whelan and your responses to them.
In your responses to the queries from the Assistant Governor you have shown gross insubordination and insolence. This kind of behaviour is intolerable in an officer or rank and it is proposed to recommend to the minister that you be downgraded. In this context, I am hereby affording you a period of 14 days in which you may put forward anything you may wish to say on your own behalf that could be taken into account by the Minister in arriving at a final decision."
The applicant applied for an extension of time of 14 days to reply, which was granted. There was further exchange of correspondence. On 27th June, 1996, he was given a final opportunity to state what could be taken into account by the Minister on his behalf in arriving at a decision on the charge....
To continue reading
Request your trial