The High Court has dismissed judicial review proceedings brought by five prison officers who challenged the Irish Prison Service’s 2013 competition for promotion to Work Training Officer.
In a judgment delivered on 27 February 2017, Mr Justice Eagar found that the applicants had not established a legitimate expectation that was breached by the way the competition was run. The court also held that they could not rely on the Commission for Public Service Appointments’ report to support their case, because of a statutory restriction on the Commission’s power to affect individual appointments.
The competition covered eight work areas, including services, catering, industrial skills, sentence management, physical education and computers. Candidates were initially assessed for shortlisting and then interviewed. A dispute arose over the Higher Certificate in Custodial Care (HCCC): some candidates had received 25 marks for holding it, although the Irish Prison Service had intended that it would not earn marks in itself.
After discussions with the Prison Officers Association, the Service withdrew the first set of panels and awarded a minimum 25 marks for qualifications to all candidates. That change brought 15 additional candidates to interview. New panels were issued in September 2013. The Commission later identified concerns about the management of the competition, including how qualifications and experience were assessed, but said it could not change individual results.
The five applicants pursued different review routes and sought judicial review. Their original claims included orders to quash the results and prevent appointments. By the time the case was heard, however, the panels had expired and, in the cases of Aisling Dunne and Aoife Quinlivan, both had accepted Work Training Officer posts. The court adopted an earlier ruling that the requests to quash the results, stop appointments, or obtain a stay or injunction were moot. The remaining issue was whether the process breached a legitimate expectation of fair and transparent selection.
The applicants argued that the competition’s governing circular and the Code of Practice led them to expect appointments based on merit through a fair process. The Irish Prison Service disputed that this expectation had been breached and argued that the court should not act as an appeal body on candidates’ scores.
Justice Eagar ruled that the proceedings had been brought in time, given the applicants’ use of the review process and their wait for the Commission’s decision. But he concluded that the applicants had not proved a legitimate expectation or a breach of one. He considered the response to the HCCC issue fair and reasonable in the circumstances. The court dismissed the proceedings; it did not alter individual competition scores or order a new competition.