Sheriff v Corrigan and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Carney J. |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 1998 |
| Neutral Citation | [1998] IEHC 135 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | No. 42 J.R./1997 |
| Date | 31 July 1998 |
[1998] IEHC 135
THE HIGH COURT
BETWEEN
AND
Citations:
EI CO LTD V KENNEDY 1968 IR 69
GLEESON, STATE V MIN FOR DEFENCE 1976 IR 280
GALVIN V CHIEF APPEALS OFFICER 1997 3 IR 240
Synopsis
Administrative
Judicial review; prison officer; misconduct; loss of promotion; disciplinary penalty; requirements of natural and constitutional justice; whether decision-making process in accordance with the principles of natural justice; whether dictates of fairness required the holding of an oral hearing Held: Application dismissed; requirements of natural justice adhered to; oral hearing not required (High Court: Carney J. 31/07/1998)
Sheriff v. Corrigan
In an application of this sort the Court is not concerned with the decision reached but with the decision making process and in the instant case where there was extensive correspondence between the parties the applicant was well aware of the allegations against him and was given an opportunity of providing a response. Further, there could be no hard and fast rule to determine when an oral hearing would be necessary but in the instant case one was not required as there was no matter of contested fact between the parties and the applicant had not requested an oral hearing. The High Court so held in dismissing the application.
Judgment delivered the 31st day of July, 1998 byCarney J.
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 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 Seamus Roche, submitted to the Applicant a subsistence form for payment of duty expenses in the sum of £5.94 and the Applicant certified the dates and times thereon as being correct. Later that evening Assistant Governor Whelan came to the Applicant with the said form and said that Clerk I Breen (hereinafter referred to as CI 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 CI Breen paid the subsistence amount due to Officer Roche.
On the 4th day of July, 1991. CI 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 CI 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 my name is as follows: SHERIFF.
In response the Applicant received an undated letter from Assistant Governor Whelan in the following terms:-
" A.C.O. Sheriff"
Please explain why on the 27th July,1994 when you replied to an official query from CI 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.
The Governor.
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 picket, 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 word “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) IrishReports 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 relation to this litigation.
On the 1st September. 1994 Assistant Governor Whelan wrote to the Applicant as follows:-
You are charged that on the 27th day of July, 1994 when replying to an official query from CI 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. 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.
Attached please find all documents relating to the charge.
A/Gov.
"Please state under what rule of the Statutory Rules and Orders1947 No. 320 Government of Prisons, do you intend charging me with.
Anthony Sheriff
10676
Assistant Chief Officer."
On the 9th November. 1994 Assistant Governor Whelan wrote to the Applicant in the following terms:-
"ACO Sheriff,
You are charged under Rule 99 Statutory Rules and Orders 1947 No.320.
C.Whelan
A/Gov.
9/11/94"
"Assistant Governor Whelan.
In answer to the above I must state without reservation that your ability to deal with this case in an impartial manner has been less than pathetic. I must now request all original documents relevant to this case for my legal adviser.
Anthony Sheriff
10676
Assistant Chief Officer
19/11/94"
The Applicant was then written to by letter dated the 20th February, 1995 which he received on the 15th March, 1995 In the following terms:-
Dublin 2.
1. Governor to see please.
2. ACO A.Sheriff, Shelton Abbey.
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 of rank and it is proposed to recommend to the Minister that you be down-graded. In this context. I am hereby affording you a period of fourteen 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.
Co. Wicklow.
For the attention of Mr. Paul...
To continue reading
Request your trial