Teaching Council of Ireland v S.R
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Faherty |
| Judgment Date | 13 August 2018 |
| Neutral Citation | [2018] IEHC 582 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2018 No. 234 S.P.] |
| Date | 13 August 2018 |
[2018] IEHC 582
THE HIGH COURT
Faherty J.
[2018 No. 234 S.P.]
IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 44(5) OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL ACTS, 2001-2015 AND IN THE MATTER OF A REGISTERED TEACHER AND ON THE APPLICATION OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL OF IRELAND
Professional misconduct – Inquiry – Disciplinary committee – Applicant seeking confirmation of its decision to remove the respondent from the Register of Teachers – Whether the applicant's decision should be affirmed
Facts: The applicant, the Teaching Council of Ireland, decided to remove the respondent from the Register of Teachers following an inquiry before a panel of the applicant's Disciplinary Committee into allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent. The matter came before the High Court on foot of a special summons which issued on 4th May, 2018 by way of an application pursuant to s. 44(5) of the Teaching Council Acts 2001-2015 to affirm the decision of the applicant. The application was grounded on the affidavit of Mr O'Dea, a Deputy Director of the Teaching Council.
Held by Faherty J that, in all the circumstances, the panel's decision on sanction addressed the issues in such a way as would not justify a refusal of the application to confirm the decision.
Faherty J held that the application would be granted and that the court would affirm the decision of the Teaching Council under s. 44(5) of the Act.
Application granted.
This matter comes before the Court on foot of a Special Summons which issued on 4th May, 2018 by way of application pursuant to s. 44(5) of the Teaching Council Acts 2001-2015 (hereinafter 'the Act') to affirm the decision of the applicant (hereinafter 'the Teaching Council' or 'the applicant') to remove the respondent from the Register of Teachers following an Inquiry before a Panel of the applicant's Disciplinary Committee into allegations of professional misconduct against the respondent.
The within application is grounded on the affidavit of Brendan O'Dea, a Deputy Director of the Teaching Council.
On 26th September, 2016, the Teaching Council's Executive Committee considered information brought to its attention by the Principal of a named school relating to an alleged incident involving the respondent, then a teacher in the said school, which occurred at the school on 7th March, 2012. The incident involved the alleged sellotaping of the mouths of five pupils in the School.
The Executive Committee is the entity established pursuant to s. 24(2) of the Act for the purpose of making complaints on behalf of the Teaching Council to the latter's Investigating Committee.
At the meeting of 26th September, 2016, the Executive Committee decided to make a complaint to the Investigating Committee on the basis that it was considered that the complaint brought by the Principal might fall within s. 42(1B) of the Act.
Section 42(1B) provides that the Investigating Committee may consider a complaint of professional misconduct notwithstanding that the conduct to which the complaint relates occurred prior to the coming into force of Part 5 of the Act where that conduct:
'(a) would have constituted a criminal offence at the time that conduct occurred, and
(b) is of such nature as to reasonably give rise to a bona fide concern that the teacher may –
(i) harm any child or vulnerable person,
(ii) cause any child or vulnerable person to be harmed,
(iii) put any child or vulnerable person at risk of harm,
(iv) attempt to harm any child or vulnerable person, or
(v) incite another person to harm any child or vulnerable person.
The Investigating Committee met on 10th October, 2016 to consider the complaint made by the Executive Committee. The Investigating Committee decided that the conduct complained of:
(i) was conduct that would have constituted a criminal offence at the time it occurred; and
(ii) was of such a nature as to reasonable give rise to a bona fide concern that the teacher may harm any child or vulnerable person.
The Investigating Committee decided that the complaint related to the fitness to teach of the respondent.
Accordingly, it was satisfied that it was entitled to consider the complaint of pre-commencement professional misconduct.
At its next meeting on 14th November, 2016, the Investigating Committee clarified that, for the purpose of s. 42(1B) of the Act, the offences which corresponded with the alleged conduct relating to the five children involved were:
'(i) For each of the children whose mouths [the respondent] allegedly sellotaped, section 2 of the Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act, 1997 and section 246 of the Children Act, 2001;
(ii) For the children in respect of whom [the respondent] allegedly instructed to sellotape their own mouths, section 246 of the Children Act, 2001.'
The Investigating Committee also decided that the procedures established under s. 24 of the Education Act, 1998 had been exhausted.
The Investigating Committee met again on 15th May, 2017 and, pursuant to s. 42(9) of the Act, formed the opinion that there was a prima facie case to warrant further action being taken in relation to the complaint. It decided to refer the complaint in whole to the Disciplinary Committee on the ground of professional misconduct.
A Notice of Inquiry dated 8th September, 2017 containing the allegations against the respondent was prepared by the Director of the Teaching Council's legal representatives and duly sent to the respondent under cover of letter dated 12th September, 2017. The letter was sent by registered post to the address maintained for the respondent on the Teaching Council's Register and which the respondent herself had included on correspondence which she had furnished earlier on in the complaint process. The letter and Notice of Inquiry were also sent by email to the respondent's email address, as appeared on the applicant's Register, and which was the email address from which the respondent communicated throughout the complaint process.
The Notice of Inquiry advised the respondent, inter alia, of the five allegations against her, namely that on 7th March, 2012, she applied sellotape and/or caused sellotape to be applied to the mouths of five named pupils in the School. She was advised that the allegations of professional misconduct, taken individually and/or cumulatively and/or in combination, amounted to professional misconduct on her part. The respondent was advised that she had the right to be represented during the course of the Inquiry. She was further advised of the range of sanctions that might be applied should she be found guilty of professional misconduct.
The panel of the Disciplinary Committee (hereinafter 'the Panel'), charged with conducting the Inquiry, held a preliminary hearing on 18th September, 2017. The respondent did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not represented. The Panel considered written submissions from the respondent and some of the witnesses concerned, and heard oral submissions from the Director of the Teaching Council's legal representatives. As disposed to by Mr. O'Dea, the function of the Director in the context of an Inquiry is to present the evidence in support of the complaint.
The Panel duly decided the Inquiry would be by way of oral hearing and would take place in public.
On 2nd October, 2017, the respondent deleted her email address which was recorded on the Register maintained by the applicant. She did not enter a replacement email address.
On 3rd October, 2017, the respondent wrote to the applicant's representatives stating that her preference in terms of communication was via post only and that she did not welcome any further email correspondence in respect to the matter from the Teaching Council or its legal representatives. In this regard, the respondent included on her letter her address, which was the same address as maintained on the Register and which is the address set out in the 'Confirmation of Teacher Status' document as exhibited by Mr. O'Dea in his affidavit.
A second preliminary hearing was held by the Panel on 26th October, 2017. The respondent did not attend and was not represented. The Panel considered further written submissions from the respondent and some of the witnesses concerned who were minors, and heard oral submissions from the Director's legal representatives. A decision was made by the Panel to anonymise the name of the respondent, the minor witnesses, the Principal of the School and the name and location of the School for the purpose of the Inquiry.
The Inquiry was duly heard before the Panel on 8th November, 2017. The respondent was not present and was not legally represented at the Inquiry. At the outset of the Inquiry, the Panel was provided with the core book of documentation. Further documentary exhibits were produced during the hearing. Oral evidence was adduced before the Panel and witnesses were examined. A transcript of the evidence adduced before the Inquiry was prepared.
In accordance s. 43(17)(b) of the Act, following the completion of the Inquiry, the Panel prepared a report dated 9th November, 2017 ('the Report'). The Panel found that allegations 1 to 5 of the Notice of Inquiry were proven as to fact. The Panel found that each of the allegations taken individually amounted to professional misconduct. It also found that taken cumulatively, or in combination, the allegations amounted to professional misconduct.
By letter dated 22nd November, 2017 sent by registered post and email, the applicant's legal representatives furnished the respondent with the exhibits from the Inquiry, the transcript and a copy of the Report. She was informed that the Panel would consider any submissions received from both her and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Cavanaghs of Charleville Ltd v Fitzpatrick
...do so.’ He cited with approval the following statement of McGovern J. in BAM Building Limited v UCD Property Development Company Limited [2018] IEHC 582, when he stated as follows: ‘The courts in this jurisdiction have long been supportive of the arbital process and there is a line of rece......