An award of £10,000 damages to the former president of the Prison Officers' Association, Mr P.J. McEvoy, has been set aside following a decision of the Supreme Court yesterday.
The award was made by the High Court in an action against the POA over the circumstances of Mr McEvoy's removal from office.
Mr McEvoy was elected president of the POA in March 1992 and removed from the post seven months later when the national executive council passed a motion of no confidence in him. He had held a number of positions in the POA over the years.
In its appeal, the POA submitted that the High Court judge had misdirected himself in law in holding that it was obliged to comply with the requirements of fair procedure and the dictates of natural and constitutional justice in considering a motion of no confidence, pursuant to Rule 62 of its constitution.
It also submitted that if the POA was obliged to comply with the requirements the trial judge misdirected himself in law in holding that damages was an appropriate remedy for any failure by it to comply.
The Supreme Court found in favour of the POA on the basis that the motion of no confidence before the executive meeting had been a "political" decision and not a disciplinary matter. In those circumstances, the court ruled that the ordinary rules of natural justice did not apply.
The presiding judge, Mr Justice O'Flaherty, said that, because he had decided the matter on a point of principle as regards the application of Rule 62, there was no necessity to consider the question of damages, because it did not arise. He would allow the appeal.
In July 1992 Mr McEvoy presided at a meeting of the national executive. Under "any other business," the conduct of a prison officer was called into question. According to Mr McEvoy's evidence, the meeting got "very hot and acrimonious". Mr McEvoy decided to "close" the meeting.
Mr McEvoy left, and a vice-president took charge. A vote of censure was passed on Mr McEvoy, seemingly arising from his decision to "close" the meeting.
The POA general secretary, Mr Denis McGrath, wrote to Mr McEvoy in August 1992 stating that when he vacated the chair at the July meeting, he purported to adjourn it, not close it. As he (Mr McGrath) had advised the meeting, Mr McEvoy did not have the authority to adjourn it in that manner and, accordingly, the vice-president took the chair.
A meeting of the council was scheduled for October 29th, 1992. Prior to it, a member of the council had notified the general secretary that he intended to propose a vote of no confidence in Mr McEvoy under Rule 62. At the meeting, the vote was passed.
Mr McEvoy complained that the rules of natural and constitutional justice were not observed which would require that a proper charge be formulated and that he should have been given an opportunity to meet that charge and defend it in any way he thought right.