Ousted Prison Assistant Commissioner Randall Woolridge began a legal fight to declare his removal unlawful in Supreme Court yesterday.

A review panel inquiry into the troubled corrections service had recommended Mr. Woolridge be offered immediate retirement after claiming he had not supported the Commissioner, had incited officers to resist change, had neglected his job for years and had helped erode leadership.

However, his lawyer Delroy Duncan argued Mr. Woolridge had never been given a proper opportunity to counter the allegations before being shunted out.

Mr. Duncan argued none of the questions posed to Mr. Woolridge by the panel were about his own performance but had been about the performance of former Prison Commissioner Colonel John Prescod, who was also removed as a result of the probe.

Mr. Woolridge then met with Home Affairs Minister Randy Horton and his Permanent Secretary on April 30, 2004 and was told about the recommendations with Mr. Horton saying he was not obliged to carry out any of them.

Mr. Woolridge declined an offer to comment and a later meeting with the Ministry was cancelled because the Minister had not made up his mind. But, at a meeting on June 23, he was offered early retirement on the basis he was not a team player.

At a meeting in early July, Mr. Woolridge told the Ministry he had not planned to retire before he was 55, which would happen in 2006, and he requested two year?s salary in addition to his pension and other entitlements.

When he was told he would not get these he offered to stay on but was bluntly told his expectations or intentions were not germane to the issue. He was asked whether he accepted or rejected the offer.

Mr. Woolridge finished his 30-plus years service on July 31 last year ? the date Government had set and later cashed his first pension cheque but reserved the right to carry on his case over unlawful dismissal.

His lawyer argued people in Mr. Woolridge?s situation should be consulted early ? not when the proposal is about to be implemented.

Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne said Mr. Woolridge had been given the chance to state his case at the very first meeting with Government but had declined.

He said Mr. Woolridge was having his cake and eating it by taking the pension money but fighting the court case and he argued Mr. Woolridge had accepted retirement by his conduct and he could have responded to Government any time after the initial meeting.

?If you are aggrieved by a situation surely you are not going to go away and put the report in a drawer,? he said.

But Judge Ian Kawaley said the Minister had already indicated he might not follow the recommendations. He said Mr. Horton seemed sure Mr. Woolridge would accept the deal and he questioned whether any attention had been paid to what would happen if he didn?t.

Thus there was no letter from the Minister saying what would happen if voluntary retirement wasn?t accepted.

?He was avoiding the trouble of investigating the matter fully,? said Dr. Kawaley. ?When the applicant played hardball he was left with little protection.?

If the case had gone to a disciplinary tribunal, Mr. Woolridge could have successfully disputed any allegations and not lost out on two year?s earnings, it was argued.