A police inspector who claimed he was wrongly overlooked for a promotion has lost a bid to have the decision quashed by a court.

David Greenidge argued that he had a legitimate expectation of promotion to Chief Inspector after he acted as head of the Criminal Investigations Unit for 20 months.

But Chief Justice Narinder Hargun ruled that Mr Greenidge fell short of the requirements for the promotion because he had failed to complete his personal development reviews.

Mr Justice Hargun said: “It is not unreasonable to exclude officers tasked with middle level managerial responsibilities, from eligibility for promotion if they fail to complete their PDRs without a reasonable excuse.

“It is impossible, in the court’s view, to characterise such a decision as irrational.”

The court heard that police officers were required to undergo annual performance and development reviews.

Mr Greenidge applied in writing for a promotion from Inspector to Chief Inspector in April 2018.

One of the requirements for promotion was two years of completed personal development reviews.

The court heard that Mr Greenidge’s 2016-17 PDR was completed in April 2018 – more than a year after the March 2017 deadline.

Mr Greenidge requested in the application that the PDR requirement be waived.

Mr Greenidge wrote: “Although clearly the PDR is a recognised tool for gauge the performance of staff, it ought not to be the one factor in performance measurement and not a condition precedent.”

He added that he believed the PDR requirement had been waived for past applicants and that it would be “unfair” to exclude him “merely on the basis of a single factor.”

But he was told he was ineligible for promotion because of the lack of the reviews.

because he did not meet the PDR requirements.

Mr Greenidge later applied to the Supreme Court for a judicial review.

Then-Acting Commissioner of Police Martin Weekes told the court that the BPS had offered waivers to the PDR requirements in the past, but only when there was justification for the officer being unable to satisfy the requirement.

But Mr Weekes said Mr Greenidge provided no explanation or evidence for why he had not completed the PDRs on time.

Mr Justice Hargun said that he was satisfied the promotions board did not have a policy where waivers would be handed out without justification.

He added that Mr Greenidge had no reasonable expectation that he did not have to meet the PDR requirement.

Mr Justice Hargun said: “The court accepts the proposition that to have allowed the applicant to proceed in the process when he contravened policy and the PDR behaviour of personal responsibility by failing to complete his own PDRs on time, despite multiple reminders from his supervisor, would have created harm to the process and the organisation.

“The court accepts that to have allowed the applicant to proceed without any evidence to suggest that he had successfully completed the application process would also have opened up the service to justifiable criticism that the promotion board was unfairly allowing one person to proceed where many others had been advised they could not for lesser disregard for the policy.”

• It is The Royal Gazette’s policy not to allow comments on stories regarding court cases. As we are legally liable for any slanderous or defamatory comments made on our website, this move is for our protection as well as that of our readers.