Bryan v Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre and Others
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Kelly |
| Judgment Date | 10 May 2004 |
| Neutral Citation | 2004 WJSC-HC 154 |
| Docket Number | No. 10101 P/2002 |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 10 May 2004 |
BETWEEN
and
[2004] WJSC-HC 154
THE HIGH COURT
The plaintiff in this case is a teacher of considerable experience with over a quarter of a century of service. He has held a number of positions in schools including that of principal. He has acquired a number of post graduate qualifications. In 1996 he took up the position of Deputy Director of Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre.
In November, 2001 the plaintiff was suspended from that position. Mercifully he was suspended with pay because he continues to be suspended until this day. In July, 2002 he commenced proceedings in this court because little or no progress had been made in the investigation of the allegations made against him which had given rise to his suspension. Some few days after proceedings had commenced he was informed by the authorities that a Senior Counsel had been appointed to conduct an investigation into those allegations. That investigation was conducted by Kevin Cross S.C. and resulted in a report being made to the plaintiff's employers.
Mr. Cross's report was completed in November, 2002 but was not furnished to the plaintiff. Unfortunately the plaintiff was not told of the outcome of Mr. Cross's investigation until he brought an application to court in July, 2003. An order of this court made on 28th July, 2003 required the defendants to disclose the report of Mr. Cross to the plaintiff. It is right to say, and ought to be said, that the result of Mr. Cross's investigation was an unequivocal acquittal of the plaintiff in respect of every allegation made against him. In this regard I quote para. 8.07 of Mr. Cross's report:
"It is, however, clear that Mr. Bryan did not while in his employment as Deputy Director of the Finglas Child Centre misconduct himself by inappropriate behaviour in relation to students in the care of the centre either on or off the premises of the centre in relation to his role as Deputy Director in the manner as set out in the terms of reference for my inquiry so as to justify any implication for his further career or to warrant any disciplinary punishment".
Earlier in the report at para. 5.64 it is stated:
"And accordingly I do not believe that the allegations taken as a whole can in any way suggest misconduct on behalf of Mr. Bryan so as to justify disciplinary action".
One would have thought that having extricated the report from the defendants pursuant to court order and having regard to its findings in his favour the plaintiffs nightmare would be at an end. This was not to be. A further allegation apparently surfaced - not in relation to any alleged wrong-doing at the Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre. This other allegation was itself the subject of an investigation by the police and gave rise to a decision by the Director of Public Prosecutions that no prosecution would be brought against the plaintiff in respect of it. That decision was communicated in a letter of 23rd January, 2004 from Detective Sergeant Quilter.
Once again, from the plaintiff's point of view, one might have thought that this ordeal which affected his life would be at an end but his suspension continued.
The matter then came before this court two weeks ago when the defendants indicated that they were not in a position to reinstate the plaintiff, notwithstanding their apparent acceptance of the report made by Mr. Cross S.C. Their acceptance of that report is identified in their letter of 26th September, 2003 to the plaintiff's solicitors. In the second paragraph thereof it is stated that the Minister is minded to reinstate the plaintiff and lift his suspension. In open court it has been confirmed by counsel for the defendants that they do indeed accept the findings of Mr. Cross. Accordingly in relation to the allegations investigated by Mr. Cross the plaintiff has been completely cleared without hesitation or equivocation.
When the matter came before me two weeks ago I was unable to ascertain the attitude of the defendants towards Mr. Bryan's reinstatement. That unsatisfactory state of affairs was apparently because as a result of the police inquiry which led to the decision of the D.P.P. not to prosecute, notification had been given to the relevant Health Board and the attitude of the Health Board had not then been ascertained.
I adjourned the matter against the defendants peremptorily for two weeks so as to enable them to ascertain and communicate to me their position on the plaintiff's reinstatement. It appears from the correspondence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Carroll v Bus Átha Cliath
... ... which passed between Dublin Bus and others (such as the Chief Medical Officer, Mr. Carroll, ... Building Society (1999) ELR 241 and Bryan v. Finglas Child and Adolescent Centre and Others ... ...