Fire officer wins dress appeal

By Barbara Gayle, Staff Reporter

Reverend Al Miller of the Build Jamaica Foundation (right), converses with Dr. Sonia Thomas (centre), senior paediatrician at the Bustamante Children's Hospital, and Gloria Robinson, acting chief executive officer during a press conference at the hospital's conference room, Friday. The occasion was the handing-over ceremony of $750,000 to purchase two
ventilators for the hospital. - Ian Allen

THE COURT of Appeal has ordered the Jamaica Fire Brigade Board to return with interest at 15 per cent, the three days' pay deducted from the salary of Herbert Hall, an Assistant Commissioner of the Fire Brigade for breaches of the Fire Brigade regulations.

Mr. Hall had appealed against a ruling of the Fire Brigade Tribunal and was successful.

The charges against Mr. Hall stemmed from an invitation sent to him in March 1996 to attend a function. The invitation read: "Dr. The Honourable Peter Phillips M.P., Minister of Health, requests the pleasure of the company of Mr. H. Hall at a Graduation Ceremony on Sunday March 31, 1996 at 2.00 p.m. at the University of the West Indies - Assembly Hall- Dress: Semi-formal".

Commissioner's complaint

After the graduation ceremony, there was a complaint from the Commissioner of the Fire Brigade. Mr. Hall responded saying, "I intended to attend the function in uniform, but I received a written invitation which said 'Dress- Semi-formal'. This in my interpretation meant that anyone could have attended in even shirt and tie. If the invitation was sent out early and we were told that we should disregard the 'semi-formal' information, I could fully understand. However, what is written is written and I know of no Court in Jamaica that would interpret 'semi-formal' as meaning uniform. The fact that the invitation came from the Commissioner's office would seem to suggest that what was written was meant to be. No one in my opinion can be faulted for interpreting otherwise."

Mr. Hall was charged with disobedience of orders in that he at the Assembly Hall, UWI on Sunday, March 31, 1996 disobeyed an instruction given by the Commissioner on Monday March 18, 1996 that all officers attending the EMS Graduation were to be in undress uniform (full ceremonial uniform).

The other charge was for neglect of duty in that Hall, as the Area Officer responsible for Area 1V, neglected to brief his divisional officers about the correct dress for the official Fire Brigade function on March 31, 1996.

Guilty

The tribunal found Hall guilty of both charges. The punishment for the first charge was a fine of three days' pay and for the second charge, Hall received a severe reprimand.

Hall who was represented by attorney-at-law Garth Lyttle, appealed against the tribunal's ruling on the ground that the proceedings were a nullity. He also complained that no notes of evidence were taken at the hearing.

The Court of Appeal comprising Mr. Justice Henderson Downer, Mr. Justice Donald Bingham and Mr. Ransford Langrin heard the appeal and said that there was no refutation that the invitation, although issued by the Minister of Health, came from the Commissioner.

The court said that "there are no notes of evidence, nor is there the mandatory report to the Commissioner which would have enabled this court to see how the tribunal resolved the mixed signals coming form the Commissioner's office.

The first signal contained in the charge was that oral instructions were issued on March 18, 1996 that all officers were to be in undress uniform. It was explained, that means full ceremonial uniform. The second as indicated above, requested the pleasure of the appellant's company in semi-formal attire."

In interpreting the rules relating to the proceedings of the tribunal, the court said that from the very inception there were procedural irregularities which went to the root of the proceedings. The proceedings were null and void, the court said.

The court, in giving its reason last week Monday for allowing Hall's appeal, said the reason for making such a finding (that the proceedings were null and void) was that in the absence of the mandatory report to the Commissioner, it was impossible to know what evidence was marshalled to support the charges and whether Hall was allowed to put forward a defence.

The court took the point, on its own motion, that the proceedings before the tribunal were invalid because of the failure to forward the report of the proceedings as required by law. The court said further that the report should contain at least a summary of the evidence, the composition of the appropriate superior authority and the findings and decision.

"It is clear that this report is mandatory as it is the protection the law affords a convicted officer so that he can challenge the proceedings on appeal or by way of judicial review," the court said.

Attorney-at-law Cheryl Lewis who represented the Jamaica Fire Brigade Board and the Attorney-General who were the respondents, had argued that Hall had filed his appeal too late to seek redress from the court.

Time frame

In response, the Court of Appeal said that there were no rules governing the time frame for appeals from "this tribunal" but they should be within a reasonable time. Mr. Hall instituted proceedings a little over a month and that was reasonable, the court found. As regard to the listing of Mr. Hall's appeal, the court said that could hardly be Mr. Hall's fault.

"The volume of complex appeals from the Resident Magistrate and Supreme Courts has grown significantly during the past five years and there are also appeals from tribunals such as this," the court said.

In allowing the appeal, the court set aside the order of the tribunal and fixed the costs of the appeal to which Mr. Hall is entitled at $25,000. The court directed the Registrar to tax costs on the Resident Magistrate's scale for the hearing at the tribunal.

The respondents have also been ordered to pay all the costs. The court ordered that the three days' pay deducted from Mr. Hall's salary must be returned with interest at the rate of 15 per cent from the date of deduction in 1996 to May 1, this year when the appeal was allowed.

Back to Lead Stories