The High Court has refused a prison officer’s request for legal representation at a disciplinary meeting, finding that a representative from the Prison Officers’ Association could help him answer the allegations fairly.
Mr Justice Barr’s judgment concerned a challenge to a decision by a prison governor not to allow a solicitor to represent the officer at a step-four meeting under the Civil Service Disciplinary Code. The meeting was to consider whether disciplinary action should follow. The court refused the relief sought; it did not decide whether the allegations were true or what disciplinary action, if any, should be taken.
The officer, identified only as H, has worked as a prison officer since 1988. The allegations followed complaints by the wife of a prisoner and another prisoner. An internal investigation found that several allegations, including bringing contraband into the prison and arranging bets, could not be established. It concluded that other concerns remained, including alleged threats against a prisoner, inappropriate WhatsApp contact with a prisoner’s wife, breach of trust, and inappropriate social media use. Those were the matters referred to the step-four meeting.
H argued that legal representation was needed because the complainants had not cooperated with the investigation and questions could arise about the messages’ admissibility and whether the woman’s phone should be examined. He also relied on the seriousness of the allegations and possible disciplinary penalties. The respondents argued that the process had been fair to date and that the remaining issues could be addressed with help from an experienced union representative.
The court applied Supreme Court decisions holding that legal representation in workplace discipline is required only where it is necessary for a fair hearing. It noted that the prison service had referred the matter to An Garda Síochána, but a superintendent confirmed there had been no criminal investigation and none was pending or ongoing. The judge said this removed a perceived obstacle to the association representing H.
The judge said the remaining questions were whether H sent the messages, how to assess the alleged threats in context, and whether the contact amounted to misconduct. The court described the messages about harming a prisoner as apparent bravado in context, but left the disciplinary assessment to the governor. It also said the internal process did not have to follow the evidential rules of a criminal trial and that H would have an opportunity to put forward his account.
The court refused the requested relief. It said there had been no breach of fair procedures to date and saw no reason to assume one would occur later; if one did, H would have remedies, including further judicial review proceedings. The parties were invited to make written submissions on the final order and costs, and the matter was listed for mention on 14 June 2023. The court continued an order restricting publication of information that could identify H, the complainants, or the prison where he worked at the relevant time.