M.Q. v Gleeson

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Barr
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1997] IEHC 26
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [1996 No. 85 J.R.]
• Date: 01 January 1998

Q (M) v. GLEESON, THE CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE, FRANCIS CHANCE & THE EASTERN HEALTH BOARD

(JUDICIAL REVIEW)

BETWEEN

M.Q.

APPLICANT

AND

ROBERT GLEESON, THE CITY OF DUBLIN VOCATIONAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE FRANCIS CHANCE AND THE EASTERN HEALTH BOARD

RESPONDENTS

[1997] IEHC 26

85 JR 1996

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis

Criminal

Extradition; discovery; political offences; fair trial; release sought by applicant; escape from prison; agent provocateur; whether an authority requesting extradition that facilitated the escape of a prisoner is entitled to seek return of prisoner; whether the existence of an agent provocateur should lead to an acquittal in this jurisdiction; whether the documents sought to be discovered are relevant in the light of the failure to deny the appellant's assertion that his escape was facilitated by the authorities; whether adverse publicity surrounding arrest would result in the complainant not getting a fair trial in England; sec. 50, Extradition Act,65 Held: Appeal dismissed; adverse publicity so long ago that it was not likely to pose a threat to the fairness of the trial; discovery refused; respondent could not have physical custody of the documents sought (Supreme Court: Hamilton C.J., O'Flaherty J., Murphy J., Lynch J., Barron J. 29/10/1998)- [1999] 1 IR 276

Quinlivan v. Conroy

Citations:

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PERSON ACT 1861 S18

EXTRADITION ACT 1965 S50

BULA LTD V TARA MINES 1994 1 ILRM 111

WILLIS V BADDELEY 1892 2 QBD 324

1 13th day of February, 1997 by Mr. Justice Barr

Mr. Justice Barr

2 The applicant, having been given leave by McCracken J., has brought judicial review proceedings in which, on the basis of particular circumstances alleged by him, he challenges the right of the fourth respondent (the E.H.B.) to furnish certain information about him to the second respondent (the V.E.C.) with a view to having him excluded from a course of education at Inchicore Vocational School which leads to a City of Dublin Vocational Education Committee Certificate in Social Studies and a Community Care Award, being qualifications relating to child care and other similar work. The applicant has also challenged the decisions of the V.E.C. (i) to act upon the allegations made about him by the E.H.B. without giving him any opportunity of being heard in his defence thereto and (ii) to exclude him from the course in question.

3 Although (with one exception) the many allegations and complaints about the applicant on which the E.H.B. has concluded that he is not a suitable person to engage in child care work are strongly contested by him, the facts and circumstances which led to the removal of the applicant by the V.E.C. from the course in question are not in dispute and I find them to be as follows:-

4 The applicant is a man now in middle years. He was born into a working class family and received primary education only. He has deposed that he was obliged to leave school early consequent upon the death of his parents. In or about 1992 he decided to return to full-time education with a view to obtaining qualifications as a social worker. He has sworn that it is his firm ambition upon conclusion of his education to obtain an appointment as a social worker in the Central Remedial Clinic or St. Michael's House, both of which cater for children. From 1992 to 1995 he attended North Strand Vocational Education College (a V.E.C. institution) where he duly passed the Junior and Leaving certificate examinations. In 1995, the applicant applied to the social studies department of the V.E.C.'s school at Inchicore, where the first respondent (Mr. Gleeson) is headmaster, for a place in their social studies course and he was duly accepted. He commenced the course in September, 1995. It included three weeks of supervised practical work experience with children at a play centre in Ballyfermot. In that regard the applicant worked with a play group comprising about twenty children of 3 or 4 years of age, 2 or 3 supervisors and 2 student workers. The applicant took up work at the play centre on 15th January, 1996 and it was intended that he would continue working there until the following 2nd February. The course at Inchicore School concluded in May, 1996. It is the applicant's declared intention to use the social studies qualification which he hoped to attain there as a stepping stone to facilitate entry into a university social science degree course which would qualify him as a professional social worker.

5 From in or about 1972 until 1993 the applicant had an on-going intimate relationship with Ms. M.G. with whom he lived and by whom he had three children - K. (born on 6th May, 1974); A.M. (born on 13th May, 1975) and M. (born on 21st October, 1981). M.G. had also three children in care when she commenced her relationship with the applicant. From 1974 until 1993 many complaints were made to the E.H.B. and various matters came to their notice about the alleged conduct of the applicant towards his own children and also towards two of M.G.'s older children. Although some of the complaints are of a grievous nature, none appear to have been put to the applicant at any time prior to January, 1996; no complaints were referred to the police by the E.H.B. for investigation nor did the board seek to take any of the applicant's children into care by reason of his alleged misconduct towards them. A.M., who was born with cerebral palsy, was seriously disabled physically and mentally all her life. It appears to have been the opinion of the E.H.B. that having regard to the straightened circumstances of M.G. and the applicant, and their inexperience in dealing with a severely handicapped child, it was desirable that A.M. should be taken into care. However, no such order was made and she remained in the care and custody of her parents until she died in 1993.

6 In late 1995, the E.H.B. learned that the applicant was a student on a V.E.C. social studies course at Inchicore which leads to a qualification in child care work. In the light of their experience of the applicant and the allegations which had been made about him, the board was of opinion that he was not a suitable person to engage in child care work and that it had a statutory duty to advise the V.E.C. of its opinion and to recommend that the applicant be removed from the course. The following sequence of events then ensued:-

7 On or about the 7th December, 1995, Ms. Linda Dowling, the course director of the Social Studies department of the V.E.C. school at Inchicore, received a telephone call from the third respondent (Mr. Chance), an acting head social worker having responsibility to the E.H.B. for its area No. 7 in which the applicant resides. Without furnishing any specific information, Mr. Chance expressed on behalf of the board reservations as to the suitability of the applicant for the social studies course on which he was then engaged. Ms. Dowling investigated the matter and responded to Mr. Chance by letter dated 13th December, 1995 as follows:-

"Dear Mr. Chance,

Regarding your interest in Mr. M.Q.'s attendance on the Social Studies course here in the college.

I understand that for legal reasons you cannot discuss the nature of your interest in M.Q., however after your phone call I was concerned about this issue. At the time of your phone call I was aware that he had commenced work placement as a Play Assistant in St. Matthew's Social Service Play School, 5 Drumfin Park, Ballyfermot on a one day a week basis. Shortly after your phone call I contacted the V.G.O.S. co-ordinator, Ms. O'Brien, in North Strand V.E.C. where M. did the Leaving Certificate this year. Also the Principal, Mr. Robert Gleeson, arranged for Superintendent Pat King of Store Street Garda Station to do a Police Check on M.. As a result of these enquiries I am satisfied that M. will continue in his placement in St. Matthew's and will attend for a block placement of three weeks from Monday, 15th January, 1996.

I trust that if there is any reason why you believe M. is unsuitable for this type of work placement that you will pursue the matter personally. The placement supervisor's name is Monica Giles who may be contacted at 6268370.

Yours faithfully,

Ms. Linda Dowling

Social Studies Course Director."

8 Mr. Chance wrote to the applicant on 11th January, 1996 as follows:-

"Dear Mr. Q.,"

9 It has been brought to my attention that you are pursuing a career in child care.

10 In the light of information available to this department. I need to meet you to discuss the implications of this information on your career choice.

11 I suggest you call to meet me on Wednesday, 24th January at 4.00 p.m. in the Eastern Health Board office at Jone's Road (above the G.A.A. headquarters at Croke Park). I will be accompanied by Sinead Harrison, Social Worker.

12 Please telephone me at 8731777 if this arrangement is not suitable.

13 Yours sincerely,

14 Francis Chance

15 A/Head Social Worker."

16 The applicant concedes that the received the letter but alleges that the subsequently lost it. He attended the meeting on 24th January as requested but contends that he understood that its purpose was to discuss problems relating to his son, M.. I am satisfied that the applicant was aware that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss his intentions in the matter of entering a career in the area of child care. I accept Mr. Chance's deposition that, having considered the records of the E.H.B. regarding allegations against the applicant about child abuse, he had bona fide come to the conclusion that he appeared to him to be a person unsuited to a career in child care and that the purpose of the meeting was to discuss his concern in that regard with the applicant. The probability is that this would have included at least an outline of the various reasons which caused Mr. Chance...