Puisne Judge Ian Kawaley is expected to decide this week whether ousted Assistant Commissioner of Corrections Randall Woolridge was unlawfully removed from his former position.

A review panel inquiry into the troubled corrections service had recommended Mr. Woolridge be offered immediate retirement from the Dept. of Corrections 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.

Lawyers for Mr. Woolridge restated their argument yesterday, telling Judge Kawaley that retirement was imposed upon Mr. Woolridge since he was not given a fair hearing by a review panel and was not given adequate notice that his attendance before the panel could result in termination. Mr. Woolridge was offered early retirement in June 2004 on the basis that he was not a team player.

Lawyer Delroy Duncan, who represents Mr. Woolridge, said the proper steps were not taken to ensure he was compulsorily retired and did not receive full benefits as a result of retiring two years before schedule.

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 Commissioner, Lt. Col. 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.

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.

Solicitor General Wilhelm Bourne said mistakes were made in the way the case was handled, however, the Minister had opened dialogue with Mr. Woolridge and concluded compulsory retirement was the last resort.

?Our case is that the Minister did not retire Mr. Woolridge ? he left on a certain acquiescence on his part,? said Mr. Bourne.

However, Mr. Justice Kawaley pointed out that Government was intent on offering Mr. Woolridge a settlement package but certain steps were not taken under the regulations to ensure the procedure was carried out properly. He pointed out that in the absence of an agreement it could not be said Mr. Woolridge voluntarily retired. Mr. Woolridge finished his 30-plus years service on July 31 last year but reserved the right to carry on his fight.