The High Court has refused a prison officer’s application to quash a report on a bullying complaint made against him, ruling that the preliminary report was not amenable to judicial review.
The applicant, Chief Officer Gerald Dowling, challenged a designated person’s opinion that a complaint against him had been made in good faith and her recommendation that he and the complainant engage in mediation. He also challenged the approval of the report by the Director of Human Resources and raised claims about fair procedures and the Dignity at Work policy.
The complaint arose from a meeting on 30 May 2018 at which Mr Dowling admonished two prison officers over an administrative matter. One of them, referred to in the judgment as prison officer M, remained after the other officer left. The accounts of the ensuing conversation differed. Mr Dowling’s account was that he raised alleged derogatory comments about senior officers, which prison officer M ultimately accepted making and apologised for. Prison officer M later complained of bullying and harassment arising from the meeting.
A designated person interviewed Mr Dowling and recorded that he disputed the complainant’s account and described the context of the meeting. Her report said she considered the complaint to have been made in good faith, but that a once-off incident did not constitute bullying under the policy. She recommended mediation. The judge noted that the report was a preliminary step: there had been no investigation, adjudication, finding or sanction, and the report did not determine the complaint.
Justice Ní Raifeartaigh held that the report concerned an early stage of an employment procedure agreed between the employer and trade unions. It was not an adjudication of disputed facts, a disciplinary finding or a sanction, and had little connection to the Irish Prison Service’s public-law functions. The court therefore refused the requested reliefs on the preliminary ground that judicial review was not available.
The judge added that, even if the report were reviewable, she would refuse the claims that fair procedures had been breached. The designated person’s role was to gather basic information and consider resolution options, not conduct a comprehensive investigation. Mr Dowling had given his account orally; the judge said the policy’s preliminary process did not require the designated person to gather all potentially corroborating material, including his contemporaneous email about the meeting.
The court also declined to decide whether the bullying complaint had merit or was made in good faith, saying that would cross into the substance of the complaint. It refused all reliefs sought.