Medical aid claim by prison officers rejected

THE HIGH Court has rejected a legal move to compel the Minister for Justice to ensure the services of a medical officer are available at all prisons in the State to 3,000 prison officers, their families and all future prison officers.

Mr Justice Daniel O’Keeffe yesterday dismissed claims by the Prison Officers’ Association and the Prison Officers’ Medical Aid Society that, having ended grant aid to the society in late 2004, the Minister was required to reintroduce a prison rule providing for medical services to prison officers and their families.

Rule 172 of the 1947 prison rules obliged the Minister to provide the services of a medical officer at all prisons within the State to attend prison officers and their families.

The plaintiffs claimed a 1986 agreement between the Prison Officers’ Association and the Minister, under which grant aid was provided by the State to the society in exchange for prison officers waiving their rights under rule 172, required the Minister to reintroduce rule 172 (as it had operated in 1986) if the agreement ended. Grant aid was ended in late 2004.

In his reserved judgment, Mr Justice O’Keeffe ruled, as a matter of law, that the Minister could not be compelled to introduce or reintroduce rule 172 and, insofar as the 1986 agreement contained such a provision, it was unenforceable in law.

He also found rule 172 had lapsed due to the introduction of new prison rules in October 2007, and none of those rules contained a provision equivalent to rule 172.

He said grant aid payments to the society provided for in agreements with the Minister from 1986 were subject to Dáil approval, and grant aid ended in late 2004. Those agreements were of a public law character, were not commercial contracts, and did not confer particular individual rights on individual prison officers, he ruled.

The plaintiffs were essentially seeking to impose on the Minister an “open-ended commitment” to introduce a rule to indemnify all prison officers and their families for medical expenses and medication, irrespective of financial or other considerations, he said. This was a “most material” restriction on the exercise of the Minister’s discretion.

Given those findings, the judge dismissed the plaintiff’s claims of entitlement to several million euro in damages over the failure to reintroduce rule 172. He also noted no claim had been made by an individual prison officer under rule 172.

The judge adjourned the case to next month to allow the sides to consider his judgment. Lawyers for the prison officers had previously indicated that, if they lost the rule 172 claim, they might seek to advance other arguments concerning the introduction of a particular scheme.

Previous proceedings over alleged breaches by the Minister of a 1982 agreement under which medical treatment was to be provided through the society were settled in 1986 on terms that the Minister, subject to Dáil approval, would pay the society an annual grant for the years 1986 to 1989 as a contribution towards pay, pension and other costs. If that 1986 agreement was not continued or replaced by another agreement, it provided that the Minister would reintroduce rule 172.

The 1986 agreement continued until late 2004, after which no further agreement was reached about grant aid for the society. Issues in dispute included the fact that the Prison Service wanted representation on the medical aid society’s board due to the significant State funding being provided.