Black prison officer abused by prisoners loses race discrimination case 

The Labour Court dismissed an appeal by Peter Onyemekeihia against a 2017 ruling by an Equality Officer that Mr Onyemekeihia was not directly or indirectly discriminated against by the Minister for Justice — or the IPS — on the grounds of race.

A black prison officer racially abused by prisoners has failed in his race discrimination case against the Minister for Justice and the Irish Prison Service (IPS).

The Labour Court dismissed an appeal by Peter Onyemekeihia against a 2017 ruling by an Equality Officer that Mr Onyemekeihia was not directly or indirectly discriminated against by the Minister for Justice — or the IPS — on the grounds of race.

Equality Officer Orla Jones also found that Mr Onyemekeihia was not harassed or victimised by the Minister for Justice — or the IPS — under different sections of the Employment Equality Acts.

Taunts and harassment

In evidence on behalf of the Nigerian-born prison officer before Ms Jones in 2016, it was alleged that the racist abuse comprised racial taunts and harassment which occur effectively on a daily basis, including for example, being called by prisoners a “black bastard”, the ’N’ word, a “monkey”, “a black monkey” and being told to “open the fucking gate you fucking monkey”.

It was also alleged before Ms Jones that prisoners also sometimes threw bananas and peanuts at Mr Onyemekeihia, or told him to go home to the Congo.

In the Labour Court ruling, issued after hearing four days of evidence across 2018 and 2021, Labour Court deputy chairman Alan Haugh said it was accepted that Mr Onyemekeihia was the subject of racial abuse by prisoners.

Mr Onyemekeihia argued that the IPS had not taken sufficient steps to discourage the type of racist behaviour he experienced.

He told the court that the sanctions imposed on the prisoners in question following complaints by him were either never implemented or briefly implemented only and then suspended.

Court's findings

However, in the court's findings, Mr Haugh said the court was satisfied on the basis of evidence heard that the IPS "has consistently taken a robust approach" in dealing with allegations of racist behaviour by prisoners against officers — including Mr Onyemekeihia —and that the sanctions imposed under the IPS disciplinary regime “are meaningful and proportionate”.

Mr Haugh said the IPS has an active anti-harassment policy in place which is known to, and understood by, prisoners and officers.

As a result, Ms Haugh said that the IPS can, therefore, rely on the defence provided under Section 14A of the Employment Equality Act where an employer can show that it took reasonable practicable steps to prevent the discrimination and harassment taking place.

Mr Haugh concluded: “The Complainant’s appeal, therefore, fails.” 

Mr Haugh did find that there is some merit in the observation of Counsel for Mr Onyemekeihia to the effect that the issues of racism and racial harassment may have not, to date, been given the level attention that they require by the IPS.

As a result, the Labour Court has directed that he IPS conduct a thorough review of its anti-racism strategy and policies having regard to examples of international best practice in this area in the prison systems of other similar jurisdictions.

Under cross examination at the Labour Court, Mr Onyemekeihia accepted that the vast majority of prisoners do not engage in racist abuse.

He submitted that the sanctions imposed under the IPS disciplinary regime for racial abuse are too lenient and not always fully implemented.

He said he believes this gives the impression to prisoners that it is okay to racially abuse a prison officer.

Insufficient deterrant

Witness on behalf of Mr Onyemekeihia, General Secretary of the Prison Officers’ Association (POA), John Clinton stated that in his view the sanction applied to prisoners who had committed acts of racial abuse against Mr Onyemekeihia were inadequate and an insufficient deterrent.

However, now retired Assistant Governor at Mountjoy, Paul Flynn told the Labour Court that a P19 sanction - for various infringements - imposed on a prisoner could result in a prisoner losing privileges for up to forty days.

Mr Flynn described this as having a significant impact on a prisoner and an individual prisoner’s record of P19s has downstream consequences where it can be taken into account by the Parole Board and the Probation Service.