Advice and Recommendation
- The Secretary of State for Defence has asked me to advise him ‘Whether an injustice was done to Mr Colin Wallace as a result of the manner in which his case was presented to the Civil Service Appeal Board when on 17 October 1975 it considered the decision of the Ministry of Defence to terminate his employment on disciplinary grounds; and, if so, to recommend whether compensation should be paid to him.’
- My terms of reference are precise, and, strictly construed, would require me to limit myself to a consideration of the manner in which Mr Wallace’s case was presented at the hearing which took place before the Civil Service Appeal Board (CSAB) on 17 October 1975 (and whether that resulted in an injustice). Having, however, considered the relevant material, I take the view that a slightly wider approach is called for, and that I should also take into account what took place shortly before and in anticipation of the hearing.
- The Secretary of State has specifically asked me not to prepare a Report, but simply to express my conclusions. I nevertheless take the view that a bare expression of my conclusions, without more, would possibly be open to misinterpretation, and that some reasoning, however brief, is needed.
- After wide reading and consultation, I have reached the clear conclusion that the hearing which took place before the Civil Service Appeal Board on 17 October 1975 was unsatisfactory in two material aspects.
- First, I was satisfied that shortly before the hearing took place representatives of the Ministry of Defence were in private communication with the chairman of the hearing with regard to Mr Wallace’s appeal. Such communication should not have happened; and I believe that what occured probably affected the outcome of the appeal.
- Secondly, Mr Wallace’s work, as an information officer, was wide-ranging in its nature. I am satisfied that the full range of Mr Wallace’s work was not made plain to the CSAB. In my view the CSAB needed to know the full range of his work if it was to adjudicate justly on his appeal.
- The Ministry of Defence had decided to terminate Mr Wallace’s employment. The CSAB recommended that if Mr Wallace wished to offer his resignation, the Department should accept this as an alternative to dismissal. In my view neither dismissal nor resignation (as an alternative to dismissal) was within the range of penalties which would have been reasonable for the isolated incident which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings. In attempting to pass a restricted document to a journalist, at a time when and in the circumstances in which he did, Mr Wallace erred; but if this incident had been considered in the overall context of Mr Wallace’s work, neither dismissal nor resignation (as an alternative to dismissal) was a reasonable penalty. To this extent, I am of the opinion that an injustice was done to Mr Wallace; and I so advice.
- In these circumstances I am asked to recommend whether compensation should be paid to Mr Wallace, and, by implication, the amount of such compensation. In my view compensation should be paid. Precise calculations are not possible; but I have had regard principally to the amount of compensation which Mr Wallace might have received had compensation been paid to him about 1975, to the fall in the value of money since 1975, and to the difficulty Mr Wallace has experienced in obtaining alternative employment. In my view an appropriate amount of compensation would be 30,000 and I recommend that such a sum should now be paid to Mr Wallace.
10 August 1990.
David Calcutt,
Queen’s Counsel