The Court of Appeal dismissed five prison officers’ appeal over an internal competition for Work Training Officer posts, and allowed the Irish Prison Service’s cross-appeal. It held that the officers’ judicial review proceedings were brought outside the time limit and that they had not established a legitimate expectation that the competition would be restarted after concerns arose over qualification marks.
The competition began in May 2013 under a process that provided for panels across eight skill sets. Candidates were assessed on qualifications and other criteria. A Higher Certificate in Custodial Care (HCCC), introduced as part of prison officer training in 2006, was initially not meant to count as relevant to the new posts. However, some assessors awarded marks for it.
After the Prison Officers Association raised concerns, the Irish Prison Service withdrew the initial panels. It then awarded all candidates at least 25 marks for qualifications, whether or not they held the HCCC, and interviewed 15 additional candidates. Revised panels were issued in September 2013.
The Commission for Public Service Appointments later reported inconsistencies in how qualifications were scored and said the process fell short of the standards in its code of practice. It considered that some candidates had been disadvantaged. The Commission’s report could not change individual appointments.
The five officers pursued reviews and then sought judicial review, arguing that the competition breached a legitimate expectation of a fair process under the code. The High Court dismissed their proceedings but declined to find that they were out of time. It found the response to the HCCC issue fair and reasonable.
On appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the grounds for challenge arose when the Irish Prison Service announced the revised approach on 23 August 2013, or, at the latest, when the new panels were published on 9 September. Even allowing for the officers’ internal appeals, their grounds arose no later than the dates they were told those appeals had failed. The appeal to the Commission did not delay the deadline because its outcome could not affect individual appointments.
The officers had not applied for an extension of time under the court rules or filed affidavits explaining the delay. The court said it therefore had no basis to extend the deadline and dismissed the proceedings on that ground.
The court also considered the legitimate expectation claim. It agreed with the High Court that the code set standards and best practice but did not make a promise to individual applicants. The officers had not shown that they applied in reliance on a particular provision or suffered detriment by participating. The court also found no error in the High Court’s conclusion that the Prison Service’s response to the scoring problem was fair, reasonable and proportionate. The court dismissed the officers’ appeal.