The Supreme Court has dismissed a prison officer’s appeal against a High Court decision allowing disciplinary hearings over allegations of sexual harassment to proceed.
Michael Curley, a prison officer at Arbour Hill Prison, argued that the Governor lacked power to hold the hearings because the complaints were made outside time limits in the Prison (Disciplinary Rules for Officers) Rules 1996 and a related Memorandum of Understanding.
The complaints were made to the Governor on 27 and 28 August 2002. Curley was served with three complaint forms on 7 October that year. Two concerned alleged incidents in spring 2002. The third concerned two alleged incidents between 1994 and 1998, as well as other incidents at unspecified, remote dates.
The Governor scheduled oral hearings for 16 December 2002. Curley obtained leave to seek judicial review, seeking to stop them. The High Court refused his application, and he appealed.
In a judgment delivered on 18 July 2005, Mr Justice Hardiman said Rule 7(2) set a seven-working-day limit for complaints made after relevant information came to a superior officer’s attention. But the rule did not cover a complaint by an officer of equal rank made directly to the Governor. The Court held that the rules contained no specific time limit for that kind of complaint.
The Court also rejected the argument that the Memorandum of Understanding extended or amended the statutory rules. It said the Memorandum could not affect the provisions of the statutory instrument. The judgment did not decide whether the Memorandum had contractual effect; it said that issue could be raised before the Governor at an oral hearing.
The Court distinguished the question of delay from the Governor’s authority to hold a hearing. An officer could argue that unwarranted or excessive delay should prevent a complaint being investigated, and any such argument could be a matter of defence. But it did not deprive the Governor of jurisdiction to conduct the hearings.
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the High Court order. It did not determine the underlying allegations or decide whether delay would ultimately prevent their investigation.