Student A & Student B v Dublin Secondary School

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: Kearns J.
• Judgment Date: 25 November 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] IEHC 47
• Docket Number: 11121p/1999
• Date: 25 November 1999

STUDENT A & STUDENT B v. DUBLIN SECONDARY SCHOOL

BETWEEN

STUDENT A AND STUDENT B

PLAINTIFFS

AND

DUBLIN SECONDARY SCHOOL

DEFENDANT

[1999] IEHC 47

11121p/1999

11124p/1999

THE HIGH COURT

Synopsis

Administrative Law

School; discipline; interlocutory injunction; two plaintiffs were final year students in defendant secondary school; defendant school a private primary and secondary school; headmaster had expelled first and second plaintiffs from defendant school for using cannabis in the toilets of a licensed premises in the course of a private party; school's code of conduct provided that use of illicit drugs would result in expulsion and that there was “zero tolerance to drugs” first plaintiff had attended defendant school from age of four; second plaintiff had enrolled as student of defendant school two months before expulsion; accepted that second plaintiff had never seen code of conduct; subsequent to expulsion both sets of parents had met separately with headmaster in an effort to persuade him to reverse or vary his decision; headmaster had declined to do so and had informed parents of their right of appeal to defendant school's board of governors; board of governors considered written representations including apologies and expressions of remorse; no meeting between either parents or students and the board before confirmation of the expulsion by the board; interlocutory injunction sought to restrain expulsion of plaintiffs; plaintiffs claiming that constitutional right to education has been interfered with, that fair procedures were not observed and that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the severity of the offence and that defendant school failed to take into account extenuating circumstances, including honest admissions by plaintiffs; whether school had authority to exercise such authority over plaintiffs; whether rules of natural justice have been breached.

Held: Matter adjourned to permit parents and plaintiffs to address board of governors before possible imposition of serious sanctions; gravity of particular offence and its implication for safety and welfare of other pupils are matters which go to nature of penalty imposed; immediate suspension may be necessary to maintain discipline within a school, particularly if pupils are placed in physical danger; defendant school entitled to take an extremely severe line in relation to drug use, even of soft drugs; “zero tolerance” approach not unreasonable; nevertheless, decision to expel, particularly a final year pupil, can be regarded as quasi-judicial; courts reluctant to interfere with autonomy of school in relation to discipline; students or parents ought not to have been precluded from making representations and submissions prior to ultimate sanction of expulsion; ex post facto submissions to headmaster insufficient; lawyers should not be present on either side before the board of governors.

Student A v. Dublin Secondary School - High Court: Kearns J. - 25/11/1999

The applicants sought an interlocutory injunction prohibiting the defendant from proceeding with the expulsions of the two boys from the defendant school for smoking cannabis. The two boys were due to sit their Leaving Certificate examination in June 2000. Kearns J adjourned the matter for one week so as to provide the plaintiffs and their parents with an opportunity of addressing the board of governors prior to the possibility of suspension or expulsion. However Kearns J held that it would remain open to the defendant school to impose a lengthy period of suspension or to order the expulsion of the plaintiffs if, having heard the submissions on behalf of the plaintiffs, the governors felt that this was the proper and appropriate course of action to adopt.

Note - At the adjourned hearing, the court was informed that the pupils were to be re-admitted on certain conditions and that the proceedings could be struck out with no order as to costs.

Citations:

FITZGERALD V NORTHCOTE 1865 4 F & F 656

GLENDENNING EDUCATION & THE LAW (1999) 338

MANSELL V GRIFFIN 1908 1 KB 160

EDUCATION ACT 1998

SMULLEN & SMULLEN, STATE V DUFFY 1980 ILRM 46

MCAULEY V COMMISSIONER OF AN GARDA SIOCHANA 1996 3 IR 208

FLANAGAN V UCD 1988 ILRM 724

JUDGMENT of

Kearns J.

delivered on the 25th day of November 1999

1 The two Plaintiffs in this case, who are die to sit their Leaving Certificate examination in June, 2000, were expelled from the Defendant school, which is a private primary and secondary school, on the 2nd October, 1999.

2 Student A was born on the 14th September, 1983 and has attended the Defendant school since he was four years of age. Student B was born on the 4th February, 1982 and was only enrolled as a student of the Defendant school in August, 1999.

3 On the night of the 1st October, 1999, both boys attended a private party which was held in licensed premises outside Dublin. In the course of the evening, two bouncers employed by the pub caught the Plaintiffs using cannabis in the toilets and put them out of the premises. A teacher employed by the Defendant school was on the premises and became aware of the incident which he reported the following morning to the headmaster of the Defendant school. As both boys had been caught "red-handed", they neither on the night in question or at any subsequent time denied being in possession of cannabis on the night in question, so there is no dispute about the facts of the incident giving rise to their expulsion.

4 In the case of Student A, the headmaster, having spoken to the Chairman of the Board of Governors, called to the home of Student A and informed his mother of the expulsion. In the case of Student B, the headmaster communicated by telephone with his parents on the same day to inform them that Student B had also been expelled.

5 In expelling the boys, the headmaster relied upon Rule 12 of the School's Code of Conduct which provides:-

"If a pupil is believed, in the Headmaster's opinion, to have taken an illicit drug at any time, he/she will be expelled from the school, irrespective of whether it was in school or not. There is zero tolerance to drugs."

6 Subsequent to the expulsion, both sets of parents met separately with the headmaster in an effort to persuade him to either reverse, vary or alter his decision, but the headmaster declined to do so, pointing out that it was open to the parents to appeal from his decision to the Defendant school's Board of Governors.

7 The parents of Student B duly wrote on the 11th October, 1999 to the Governors, requesting a meeting with the Board so that they could "put their case in person". Both boys wrote letters in which they expressed remorse and regret for what had occurred.

8 Insofar as Student B was concerned, he maintained, and this is accepted by the Defendants, that he was never presented with the School Code of Conduct, nor was he ever told of the school's policy in relation to drugs. The Defendant's headmaster accepts that this is correct because Student B had so recently arrived in the school. He further states that Student B, in the course of a meeting with him on the 3rd October, 1999, admitted taking drugs on other occasions in his previous schools.

9 In the Affidavits presented to the Court, the mother of Student A has deposed that parents were never advised of any policy of zero tolerance towards drugs in the Defendant's school. She claims to have attended every school meeting since 1988 and states that the issue of drugs or drug abuse never came up for discussion. Further, no copy of the Rules or Code of Conduct were ever sent either to her or given to Student A. The Defendant's headmaster accepts these averments, but in his Affidavit and in his evidence given to the Court, has stressed that the Defendant's school policy on drugs and the penalties for using same were promulgated at least twice in recent years at Assembly at which all students, including Student A, attended. The headmaster is adamant that Student A would have been perfectly well aware of the serious view taken by the school on relation to drug abuse. In response, the mother of Student A in a further Affidavit deposes that her son was not aware that these strictures applied outside school hours in a private location.

10 I should mention at this part that there is no evidence before the Court to suggest that at the party in question the boys were present in any sort of representative capacity on behalf of the school or could be identified as belonging to the Defendant school. However, it does seem that many of those present were in fact students of the Defendant school.

11 Although correspondence and an account of the various representations made on behalf of both boys were passed on to the Board of Governors by the headmaster, no meeting took place between either the parents of students and the Board of Governors prior to the confirmation of the expulsion by the Board on the 14th October, 1999.

12 The parents of both students claim it will be difficult for them to make alternative arrangements for the boys and seek an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Defendant school from expelling the Plaintiffs. It is claimed on behalf of the Plaintiffs that their constitutional right to education has been interfered with, that fair procedures were not observed and that the penalty imposed was disproportionate to the severity of the offence and further that the Defendant school failed to take into account extenuating circumstances, including the honest admission of the Plaintiffs to what had occurred and their full apology and assurances of good behaviour in future. Neither boy had been the subject of suspension or other serious breach of discipline at any time within the school.

13 Naturally the application is one of considerable urgency having regard to time considerations and I am conscious that any order made by the Court may have far...