A WOMAN sacked from the government’s Covid-19 helpline team has been denied a judicial review even though the Royal Court found the process for her dismissal was ‘arguably unfair’.
Lindsey Gina Greechan previously admitted accessing her family’s records, something which she was told constituted gross misconduct, her contract was terminated, and her dismissal upheld on appeal.
But she claimed that she did not have the opportunity to explain any mistakes she might have made followed training she had received, and that any breach of government policy was unintentional.
Ms Greechan was seeking leave to challenge the States Employment Board’s decision to uphold her dismissal last year from a post as an adviser involved in booking Covid PCR tests, arranging vaccination appointments, and placing orders for lateral-flow testing kits. Previously, she had been employed by First Recruitment Ltd to provide this support to the public.
Having worked for FRL and then directly for the government between December 2021 and May 2022, Ms Greechan was called to a meeting on 24 May last year when she was told that a concern had arisen that she had accessed information on the computer database that she was not entitled to see.
The Bailiff, Sir Timothy Le Cocq, said it appeared that the initial decision not to continue Ms Greechan’s employment was taken ‘at the end of an unfair and truncated procedure in which [she] was afforded no opportunity to prepare for the allegations to be made against her, nor to explain her position’.
‘Furthermore, again, it appears on the surface of the information before me, that in reviewing the dismissal of the applicant it would have been difficult for the [SEB] to conclude that the applicant’s employment had been discontinued as a result of a proper and fair process,’ Sir Timothy said.
Giving judgment the application for a review, Sir Timothy said that the case lacked ‘sufficient public law element’ to allow the court to assume jurisdiction for a judicial review.
In his judgment, the Bailiff said that it was not always easy to determine the court’s jurisdiction in matters involving judicial review but the fact that the case involved the SEB did not make it a public law case.
‘In my judgment, there are not sufficient features in this case or a sufficient public law element such as the court should assume jurisdiction to conduct a judicial review. No matter how the [SEB] has behaved towards the applicant, the relationship between them does not possess the public law element which is essential to justify an application for judicial review,’ Sir Timothy said, refusing the application.
