The High Court has cleared the way for the dismissal of a trainee prison officer after traces of cocaine were found in a bedside locker of accommodation he was provided with as part of his training.
Mr Justice Rory Mulcahy found Eddie Campbell, who was employed in Portlaoise Prison, had not made out a strong case against his dismissal which was likely to succeed. He therefore refused to continue an injunction restraining his dismissal.
The judge said Mr Campbell was provided with a room in the prison for the first six weeks of his training between April and June 2022.
He left the room on June 3rd and a cursory inspection was first carried out to ensure there was no damage. The room remained empty until June 9th, when a deep clean of the room was carried out and three plastic bags containing a white powdery residue were found in the drawer of a bedside locker.
Forensic testing later showed the residue in the bags was cocaine.
A disciplinary investigation followed and a year later, June 2023, the Irish Prison Service (IPS) terminated his employment for serious misconduct.
A significant issue was raised during the disciplinary process over whether anyone else entered the room after Mr Campbell left, but before that deep clean was carried out.
Mr Campbell, who denied any wrongdoing, brought High Court proceedings against the IPS and the State claiming the decision to dismiss him was unfair as was the disciplinary process he underwent.
He was granted an interim injunction last June preventing his dismissal pending further order. The defendants denied the claims.
On Friday, Mr Justice Mulcahy refused to continue the injunction.
He said Mr Campbell had not met the "strong case likely to succeed" threshold required to obtain an injunction to restrain his dismissal.
He had also not established that the disciplinary process fell short of the requirements of fair procedures.
The overall procedure included a lengthy investigation, during which he was interviewed twice, followed by a disciplinary hearing at which he was represented by a colleague, he said.
He was advised of the outcome and given a right of appeal, which he exercised.
Critically, the entire procedure appears to have been carried out in accordance with the requirements to which Mr Campbell was contractually entitled, he said.
It was not necessary, the judge said, for him to consider the arguments regarding the balance of convenience and the adequacy of damages as a remedy.
