Christian Brothers High School Clonmel -v- Stokes

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: http://justis.com/court/2781,District Court (Ireland)
• Judge: Teehan J.
• Judgment Date: 25 July 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] IECC 1
• Case Outcome: Approved
• Docket Number: 13/2011
• Decision Date: 25 July 2011

Neutral Citation Number [2011] IECC 1

THE CIRCUIT COURT

Record Number: 13/2011

SOUTH EASTERN CIRCUIT

COUNTY OF TIPPERARY

Between:

CHRISTIAN BROS HIGH SCHOOL CLONMEL

APPELLANT

AND

MARY STOKES (ON BEHALF OF HER SON JOHN STOKES)

RESPONDENT

Judgment of His Honour Judge Thomas Teehan delivered on 25th July 2011

1. The Appellant Sc hool had 140 places fo r new students at t he beginning of the ac ademic year 2010/2011. There were 174

applicants. A s mall number of st udents with e xceptional needs, and a larger number of applicants with a brother or brothers already in

the sc hool, were automatically given place s at, as it we re, the head o f the queue. This was in acc ordance with t he Admissions Policy

of the school.

2. The next - and f inal - cat egory of applicant ca tered for by means of being automatica lly acc epted for a place in the school was

those boys whose fat hers were past pupils of the High School. T his again was in acc ordance wit h the Admissions Policy. This meant

that 83 plac es were f illed.

3. The next stage wa s to f ill the remaining places by means of a lot tery involving the boys w ho had not yet been selected f or places.

(There is a referenc e in the dec ision of the Equality Officer t o the f act that four applicants who had maximum eligibility, but who had

applied late, were added t o the list of those taking part in the lott ery; I do not recall hearing evidence of t his on the appeal hearing

before me, but it seems likely that c onvincing evidence t o this effect was given at the earlier hearing). Among these was John

Stokes, a member of the Travelling Community. He was deemed an appropriate applicant, by reason of his parents’ intention to submit

their son to a Roman Catholic educ ation in acc ordance w ith the Mission St atement and Christian ethos of the sc hool, and of his

having attended one of the recognised feeder sc hools at primary level (and who also, presumably, applied on time), but he was one of

the unsucc essful candidates when t he draw was made.

4. Some of the c riteria for priority se lection were not material in relation to the selec tion of st udents fo r the sc hool year 2010/2011.

5. The ev idence before me was t hat 36 st udents were a dmitted under the "parental rule". None of t hese was a member of the

Travelling Community. T his was in acc ordance with the e vidence whic h was t hat, historically, ve ry few members of t hat c ommunity

have undergone second level educ ation (the evidence in t his case w as that a number of Traveller children attended t he High School

over the past 20 to 30 years, but t hey formed a tiny proportion of the school population). It is t he c ontention of t he respondent that

this rule thereby discriminates against that community, and t hus runs counter t o the provisions of the Equal Stat us legislation and the

legislation pertaining to e ducation.

6. The High School is one of only two s econdary sc hools for boys in a t own with a population of 24,000. The other is t he Voc ational

School; like many parents in the town, Mrs St okes was unwilling to have her son at tend this school, although I have no reason to

believe that s uch bias is in any way warranted.

7. John having failed to sec ure a place in the sc hool, his mother appealed the decision. T his was unsucc essful. An appeal pursuant to

sect ion 29 of the Educ ation Ac t 1998 was lodged; t he sec retary-general of t he Department of Educat ion and Skills referred the

matter to an Appeals Committee; the ruling of that body was to disallow the appeal, determining that t he Board had been "fair and

reasonable in the application of the sc hool’s admission policy in a situation where t he numbers of applicants greatly exc eeded the

places available".

8. It is argued on behalf of the respondent t hat t his Court can make findings against the Appellant on t he basis of alleged breaches of

statut ory duty under the Education Ac ts. I can not acc ept that argument for two reasons: the principle of f inality in litigation requires

that matt ers determined under sec tion 29 of t he Act of 1998 can not be revisited; and proc eedings pursuant to t he Equality

Legislation can only succ eed where a breach of duty under that legislation - as oppose d to ot her enact ments - has bee n established

to t he satisfac tion of the c ourt. Nonetheless, t he court’s view of t he matters which are in dispute must necessarily be informed by

statut ory provisions which have spec ific referenc e to those issues, and in particular to sec tions 6 and 15 of the Educat ion Act 1998.

9. Mrs Stokes grew up in Limerick. She w as one of a large family. Unusually, within the Trave lling Community, she and all of her siste rs

and some of her brothers received sec ondary educa tion. Neither her husband nor any of his family went beyond primary sc hool. Mrs

Stokes made a very favo urable impression. She is the mother of seven c hildren, is very properly ambitious for John and for her other

children, and was spoken of very highly by other witnesses on both sides of the c ase.

10. For his part, Mr. Bannon, the Principal of t he sc hool, impressed me also. As the head of suc h a large school, he o bviously has to

grapple with many complex problems on a daily basis. He has been involved in educ ation for many years, during the last 20 of which

he has been Principal of t he High School. He outlined to the court t he history of the sc hool's Admissions Policy, and t he difficulties

which different approac hes had thrown up. I am satisfied he is acut ely aware of t he deep disappointment and, indeed, hurt

experienced by many families (including the Stokes family) over many years on finding that there was no place av ailable in the school