B (A Minor) suing by his mother and next friend X v The Board of Management of St. Q's College; C (A Minor) suing by his mother and next friend Y v The Board of Management of St. Q's College
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | President |
| Judgment Date | 31 July 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IECA 229 |
| Date | 31 July 2019 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Ireland) |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 445] [2018 No. 446] |
[2019] IECA 229
THE COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL
Birmingham P.
Birmingham P.
Whelan J.
Costello J.
[2018 No. 445]
[2018 No. 446]
Education – Misuse of drugs in school – Pupils filming another child ingesting alleged cocaine – Disciplinary proceedings – Judicial review
Facts: Boys B and C had filmed another pupil at their school ingesting what was alleged to be cocaine, and footage had been disseminated through the Snapchat app. The matter came to light and the Board of the school eventually decided to expel the boys. The applicants sought judicial review and the High Court had granted interlocutory injunctions, but the applicants now sought to appeal.
Held that the appeal would be dismissed and the decision of the High Court upheld. The Court was persuaded that the High Court had approached the matter carefully and correctly balanced the issues at hand. The orders below would be upheld save for one variation in respect of the limited duration of the injunction permitting the boys to continue attendance at school.
On 3rd October 2018, during the course of a 6th year construction class being held in the Design and Communications classroom of St. Q's College, a secondary school under the patronage of a Catholic religious order, a pupil produced a white powdered substance in a small, clear plastic bag. The pupil in question: Boy A, who is not and has never been a party to the present proceedings, proceeded to place some of that substance on a key and then place the key with the substance on it to his nose and to snort it. The substance snorted may or may not have been cocaine. The student directly involved in the incident has denied that it was and it has never been analysed. Both Boy B and Boy C were pupils in the class at the time. It has never been suggested that either boy had any involvement with snorting or ingesting the substance. However, both boys produced mobile phones and filmed what was occurring and that same footage later appeared on a messaging app known as ‘Snapchat’.
In the case of Boy B, there were some 50 people in his Snapchat group or who had access to his ‘story’. Subsequent enquiries, including enquiries conducted by Boy B's father, who is an IT consultant, would suggest that some ten or twelve people viewed the material before it was taken down. One of those who did view the material was a brother of Boy B and he reported what he had seen to his mother. Boy B's mother was very concerned at what she viewed. She went immediately to the school and requested to speak to the school Principal. He was unavailable, but in his absence, she met with one of the Deputy Principals who was permitted to take a copy of the footage. Ms. B, mother of Boy B, has averred that she was expressly assured that her son would not be in any trouble and that it was on that basis that she allowed the school authorities take a copy of the footage. The Deputy Principal, on the other hand, says that she never gave any assurances about the boy not being in trouble, but on the contrary, expressly informed her that she could not ignore what she had seen and would have to take all appropriate and necessary action.
It is something of a recurring theme in the case that the family members of the boys who filmed the incident, and indeed, the boys themselves, refer to receiving a degree of comfort and assurance that the boys would not be in trouble and that the important thing was that they should now tell the truth, whereas the senior members of the school teaching staff with whom they dealt, insist that there were no such assurances. To the extent that there is a conflict, it is not possible to resolve it at this stage. In my view, probably little enough turns on this. It may well be that the teachers involved were seeking to be supportive and encouraging and that family members in their stressed state paid too much attention to this aspect of the message.
On 4th October 2018, the applicant, Boy B, met with another of the school's two Deputy Principals, though not the same Deputy Principal that his mother had met the day previously, and he gave a statement to her. Once more, there is a degree of controversy as to whether he was told that he was not in any trouble and should not worry. A similar interview is said to have been conducted with Boy C in which similar assurances are alleged to have been made.
On 8th October 2018, the parents of Boy B met with the school Principal who explained that the issue was to be considered by the school's Board of Management and the question of sanction, if any, if that stage was reached, would be a matter for the Board. On the same day, the mother of Boy C, received a phone call to say that the matter was being put before the Board of Management. On 10th October 2018, the parents of both Boy B and Boy C learned that their sons had been suspended pending a meeting of the Board which was to take place on 15th October 2018. At the meeting on 15th October 2018, a report on the incident was presented by the school's Principal, the boys and their parents had an opportunity to address the meeting, and thereafter they and the Principal withdrew.
In the case of Boy B, it is to be noted that he is dyslexic, and since he started in the college has been assisted in his studies by way of additional one-to-one resources. His behaviour in school prior to this incident had generally been good. On the other hand, in the case of Boy C, his previous disciplinary record was described by the school Principal in his report to the Board of Management as ‘[having] on occasions, been challenging’. He had been suspended from school for short periods on a number of occasions.
The matter was discussed and the Board of Management reached a unanimous view. This view was communicated to the boys” parents by a letter dated 16th October 2018 from the school Principal, in his capacity as Secretary to the Board of Management. It recorded that the Board had decided that a sanction was warranted and that given the very serious nature of the matter under consideration, it had formed the opinion that the appropriate sanction was expulsion. It indicated that the Board had formed that opinion on the following grounds:
I. That the gravity of the incident being filmed and the deliberate posting of it online for the attention of others is an inappropriate use of ICT which may lead to serious sanction, up to and including expulsion;
II. That the student had been involved in a serious one-off offence which breached the college's Code of Behaviour and Discipline; and
III. That the students” behaviour was such that it brought the good name and reputation of the college into disrepute.
The letter further stated that in accordance with the terms of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000, that the Board had to allow for a period of twenty school days before reaching a final decision. During that time, the Board was available to engage in a facilitation process with the National Education Welfare Board (NEWB) and the boys” parents. At the end of the twenty-day period, the Board would reconvene and consider the outcome of those consultations and the opinion formed. The letter concluded by saying that the Board was of the view that the behaviour posed a serious threat to the good order and discipline of the school, and given that, it had decided to suspend Boy B and Boy C until the Board reconvened on 20th November 2018 to consider the matter further. In fact, due to the intervening holidays, the Board would reconvene instead on 23rd November 2018.
The cumulative effective of these actions on the part of the school must be considered. The decision to suspend on the 10th October 2018 pursuant to the Code of Discipline and Behaviour when combined with the formation of the Board's opinion that expulsion was the appropriate sanction on 15th October 2018, which itself triggered the statutory grace period of twenty school days during which time an Education Welfare Officer would prepare a report on their cases, meant that both boys would be suspended from 10th October 2018 to 23rd November 2013. Thereafter, they would face expulsion.
On 12th November 2018, the applicants sought leave to apply by way of judicial review, seeking certain reliefs. On 15th November 2018, the applicants sought short service of an application for interlocutory injunctive relief. The matter came on for hearing on 20th November 2018 and the following day, Barrett J. delivered judgment in the High Court. The High Court concluded its judgment by saying that it considered it appropriate, on the particular facts of the application before it, to grant an interlocutory injunction compelling St. Q's College to permit each of the applicants to attend St. Q's and continue their education for the present academic year (2018/2019) pending the full and final determination of the above-titled proceedings. It will be necessary to consider in some more detail just what was decided by Barrett J, the terms of his order and the nature of the reliefs that had been sought by the applicants, which had not been in identical terms. However, before doing so, to complete this overview of what has brought us here, it is necessary to refer to one further aspect. Section 29 of the Education Act 1998 provides that where a Board of Management makes a decision to permanently exclude a student from a school, an appeal lies to the Secretary General of the Department of Education and Science. The s. 29 appeals procedure was considered by the Supreme Court in Board of Management...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
B (A Minor Suing by His Mother and Next Friend X) v The Board and Management of St Q's College
...matters, issuing a single reserved judgment (see [2018] IEHC 664). Its decision was appealed by the Board to the Court of Appeal (see [2019] IECA 229): that appeal was favourable to B who was awarded his costs by this Court and also his costs on appeal; C's case went a little differently: t......