The High Court quashed two Irish Prison Service decisions refusing to treat a prison officer’s absence from work as arising from an occupational injury. The court found that neither decision gave adequate reasons and sent the matter back to the service. It did not decide whether the injury qualified under the relevant scheme or whether the officer had been negligent.
The officer, an assistant chief officer at Limerick Prison, was injured on 30 August 2019 while attempting to restrain a prisoner being taken from a cell to court in Limerick. The judgment says the prisoner bit and head-butted him, injuring his right shoulder. He underwent surgery and returned to work in spring 2020.
The Prison Service refused his application on 31 October 2019, saying the governor could not make a recommendation because the evidence was “inconclusive”. The officer appealed. On 9 December, the service upheld the refusal because there was no governor’s recommendation and said allowances paid during the absence would be recouped.
Justice Niamh Hyland said the first decision did not explain what was inconclusive or why the governor could not recommend that the absence be treated as occupational-injury related. The appeal decision simply referred back to the absence of a recommendation and did not provide a fresh, reasoned review. The court said reasons supplied later in correspondence or legal submissions could not repair the failure to explain the decisions when they were made.
The judge also extended the deadline for bringing the judicial review by five days. She treated 7 February 2020 as the date time began to run, when the officer received a letter confirming that the December refusal still stood. The officer sought leave on 12 May. The court accepted that the lack of reasons had hindered his ability to decide whether to challenge the refusal.
The judgment did not resolve other grounds concerning the officer’s opportunity to be heard, the reasonableness of the decisions, or equal treatment with another officer involved in the incident. It said the Prison Service must give the officer an opportunity to present relevant material if it makes a new decision. The judge expressed no view on whether the incident fell within the scheme or whether the officer was negligent or contributorily negligent. A hearing on costs was adjourned; the court made no order for declaratory relief.