Jackson v Secretary of State for Scotland
| Jurisdiction | Scotland |
| Judgment Date | 08 January 1992 |
| Date | 08 January 1992 |
| Court | Court of Session |
Inner House of the Court of Session
Before the Lord President (Lord Hope), Lord Cowie and Lord Sutherland
Civil service - retirement through ill-health - deferred by disciplinary proceedings
Where the Civil Service conditions of service provided that if an officer wished to retire on the ground of ill health, his case "will be referred to the occupational health service at the earliest possible stage", a government department was not entitled to defer such a referral of an officer pending the resolution of disciplinary proceedings against him.
The First Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session so held, allowing a reclaiming motion against an interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dismissing a petition by Gordon Jackson for judicial review of a decision by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Paragraph 10581 of the Civil Service Pay and Conditions of Service Code Handbook (October 1989) provides: "If a department proposes to retire an officer for health reasons, or if an officer wishes to retire on grounds of ill health, the case will be referred to the occupational health service at the earliest possible stage."
Mr Colin Sutherland, QC, for the petitioner and reclaimer; Mr Arthur Hamilton, QC, and Mr Robert Reed for the secretary of state.
LORD COWIE said that the reclaimer had presented a petition for judicial review of a decision by the Scottish Home and Health Department deferring an application by him to retire on the ground of ill-health from his post as governor-in-charge of Glenochil Young Offenders' Institution until disciplinary proceedings against him had been disposed of.
He had been suspended from his post as a result of an allegation that, inter alia, cannabis resin had been found in his possession, and preliminary disciplinary enquiries had been instituted by the department under paragraph 10031 of the code. Subsequently he had been charged on summary complaint with offences under the Firearms Act 1968.
Before the disciplinary enquiries had been instituted, the reclaimer had suffered a myocardial infarction. While the disciplinary and criminal proceedings were pending he had written to the department formally requesting medical retirement.
In reply, the department had informed him that action upon his request would be deferred until both sets of proceedings had run their course. The fundamental issue was whether the department...
To continue reading
Request your trial