C.D. v The Board of Management of a National School
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Mr. Justice Barr |
| Judgment Date | 04 December 2019 |
| Neutral Citation | [2019] IEHC 819 |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 627 J.R.] |
| Court | High Court |
| Date | 04 December 2019 |
[2019] IEHC 819
THE HIGH COURT
JUDICIAL REVIEW
Justice Barr
[2018 No. 627 J.R.]
Judicial review – Disciplinary process – Failure to give reasons – Applicant seeking an order of certiorari – Whether the decision to dismiss the applicant was irrational and unreasonable
Facts: The applicant applied to the High Court primarily seeking an order of certiorari by way of judicial review quashing the decision of the respondent, the Board of Management of a national school, to dismiss her from her position as principal of that school and as a teacher at that school, which decision was made by the respondent on 14th March, 2018 and communicated to the applicant by letter dated 16th March, 2018. The core allegations against the applicant concerned allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards two pupils. The kernel of the applicant’s case was that the investigation process leading to the decision to dismiss her and the subsequent rejection by the respondent of the recommendation of the Disciplinary Appeals Panel (DAP), was fundamentally flawed, such that the Board arrived at a decision which was legally indefensible. It was submitted that the Board’s decision was irrational, unreasonable and unlawful. The applicant challenged the validity of the process whereby she was put on administrative leave as and from 6th April, 2016. She challenged the validity of the decision to invoke the Stage 4 disciplinary process pursuant to circular 60/2009, which set out the procedures for suspension and dismissal of principals. However, the core of the applicant’s argument was that the decision to dismiss her was irrational and unreasonable because the respondent failed to give any, or any adequate, reasons why they had reached that decision. She maintained that there had been no proper evaluation of the evidence for and against the allegations levelled against her, nor had she been told what allegations had actually been found as having been proven against her. In those circumstances, it was argued that the decision was bad at law for failure to give reasons for it. Finally, it was argued that the rejection of the recommendations of the DAP by the respondent was bad in law having regard to the established case law as to the circumstances where a Board could lawfully depart from the recommendations of the DAP.
Held by Barr J that the respondent did not act unreasonably in moving directly to a Stage 4 disciplinary process, that the respondent’s decision to place the applicant on administrative leave was not unreasonable and that up to, and including, the disciplinary hearing, the respondent acted in a rational and fair manner. Barr J held that as the people on the Board were given the role under the Education Act 1998 of adjudicating on whether the principal should be dismissed on grounds of serious misconduct, they had to engage with the evidence tendered in respect of each and every allegation and make a decision as to which of those allegations, if any, were proven against the applicant; they had to engage with all of the evidence in a rational and fair manner and it could only be demonstrated that they had done that by giving reasons for their decision. As they did not do that, Barr J was satisfied that the decision of the Board to dismiss the applicant must be set aside on that ground. Barr J was satisfied that for its failure to give due consideration to the DAP findings and recommendation, the decision of the respondent to dismiss the applicant from her position as principal must be set aside on that ground as well.
Barr J held that the decision of the respondent to dismiss the applicant from her position as principal and teacher in the respondent’s school, which decision was made on the 14th March, 2018 and communicated to the applicant by letter dated 16th March, 2018, would be quashed.
Relief granted.
The primary relief sought by the applicant is an Order of certiorari by way of judicial review quashing the decision of the respondent to dismiss the applicant from her position as principal of a particular national school and as a teacher at that school, which decision was made by the respondent on 14th March, 2018 and communicated to the applicant by letter dated 16th March, 2018. Due to the fact that the core allegations against the applicant concerned allegations of inappropriate behaviour towards two pupils, and as the school in question is a very small national school in a rural setting, and as it will be necessary to look at the allegations in some depth later in this judgment, the Court has decided to anonymise the judgment, so as to protect the identity of the parties and more particularly, the identities of the children concerned.
The applicant, who has been identified above by the letters “C.D.”, which are not her actual initials, was the principal of a small rural national school until the Board of Management of that school decided, following a disciplinary process, that she should be dismissed from her position as both principal and teacher at the school. The school in question is very small. It had 20 students, two teachers, a special needs assistant and someone who covered the joint role of secretary/special needs assistant, at the time of the matters complained of herein. The people centrally involved in the incidents giving rise to the allegations, will not be identified by name in this judgment. They will be identified by their job description.
The applicant held the role of principal and was also one of the two teachers in the school. Certain allegations were made against her by the special needs assistant (hereinafter “SNA”), in a statement which was furnished by the SNA to the chairperson of the Board of Management on 25th March, 2016. Thereafter, an investigation process was put in place which culminated in a disciplinary hearing held on 21st February, 2018. Following that, the respondent reached the decision that the applicant should be dismissed from her post as both principal and teacher, which decision was communicated to her by letter dated 16th March, 2018. The applicant appealed that decision to the Disciplinary Appeals Panel (hereinafter the “DAP”), which found in her favour and issued a recommendation that she should be immediately reinstated to her position as principal. However, in a written response dated 27th June, 2018, the respondent declined to follow the recommendation of the DAP and confirmed its decision to dismiss the applicant. This entire procedure will be looked at in more detail in the next section of the judgment.
The kernel of the applicant's case is that the investigation process leading to the decision to dismiss her and the subsequent rejection by the respondent of the recommendation of the DAP, was fundamentally flawed, such that the Board arrived at a decision which was legally indefensible. It was submitted that the Board's decision was irrational, unreasonable and unlawful. The applicant has challenged the validity of the process whereby she was put on administrative leave as and from 6th April, 2016. She challenged the validity of the decision to invoke the Stage 4 disciplinary process pursuant to circular 60/2009, which set out the procedures for suspension and dismissal of principals. However, the core of the applicant's argument was that the decision to dismiss her was irrational and unreasonable because the respondent failed to give any, or any adequate, reasons why they had reached that decision. She maintained that there had been no proper evaluation of the evidence for and against the allegations levelled against her, nor had she been told what allegations had actually been found as having been proven against her. In these circumstances, it was argued that the decision was bad at law for failure to give reasons for it. Finally, it was argued that the rejection of the recommendations of the DAP by the respondent was bad in law having regard to the established case law as to the circumstances where a Board could lawfully depart from the recommendations of the DAP.
The respondent's response can be summarised in the following terms: it was submitted that having regard to the nature of the allegations made by the SNA on their face, it was reasonable, appropriate and indeed mandated by child protection requirements, that the respondent should place the applicant on administrative leave while the matter was being investigated. It was submitted that it was appropriate to invoke the Stage 4 process, given that the allegations were serious and were hotly disputed by the applicant and therefore had to be investigated in a thorough manner. In addition, given the range of possible sanctions up to and including dismissal, it was appropriate to invoke the Stage 4 process. In relation to the allegation that the respondent failed to give adequate reasons for its decision, it was submitted that the Court should take account of the fact that the Board of Management of the school was made up of ordinary people taken from various walks of life, who did not have any legal training or experience, nor any experience in industrial relations matters. It was submitted that it was against this background that the Court had to look at the adequacy of the reasons given in the latter dated 16th March, 2018. In addition, the Court was urged to have regard to the fact that the reasons set out in that latter, had to be seen in the context of the very thorough investigation that had been carried out by an independent investigator, Ms. Eileen Flynn, on behalf of the chairperson of the Board, together with the holding of a detailed and fair disciplinary hearing. It was submitted that if the Court had regard to the entirety of the process from start to finish, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial