The High Court ruled that most of the relief sought by two prison officers in challenges to an Irish Prison Service promotion competition had become moot after both accepted work training officer posts. A claim for a declaration about the selection process remained before the court.
In a judgment delivered on 16 March 2016, Mr Justice Michael White considered the Prison Service’s motions to strike out or dismiss the judicial review proceedings as moot. The officers had challenged the 2013 competition for work training officer posts, saying the selection process breached natural and constitutional justice and the notice party’s code of practice. Those were their claims; the court did not decide their truth in this judgment.
After the competition, Aisling Dunne was placed 24th on the Integrated Sentence Management panel. Aoife Quinlivan was placed 21st on that panel and 23rd on the Services panel. Both were initially unsuccessful in securing a post and pursued internal appeals. The High Court granted them leave to bring judicial review proceedings in August 2014. Their motions sought to quash the results, prevent appointments, and obtain declarations and interim relief. No interim injunction was granted.
The Service later resumed appointments. Dunne accepted an offer in February 2015, and Quinlivan accepted an offer that month as well. Both said in writing that accepting the posts did not withdraw or compromise their cases. In affidavits, they described alleged effects of their panel placements, including stress and concerns about future transfers. Those statements were evidence submitted by the applicants, not findings by the court.
Justice White held that the requests for certiorari, prohibition, a stay and an injunction were now moot. He found that the only justiciable issue remaining between the applicants and the Service was their request for a declaration that the Service’s conduct of the competition was unlawful and breached natural and constitutional justice. The judgment did not decide that declaration claim.
Applicants’ counsel raised the possibility of damages. The judge noted that damages were not included in the leave order or the motions. He said that, if the applicants wished to seek damages under Order 84, rule 24(1), they would need to apply to amend the leave order and their motions. The judgment does not record a decision on such an application.