The Teaching Council v Cian Cooney
| Jurisdiction | Ireland |
| Judge | Ms. Justice Irvine |
| Judgment Date | 24 January 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] IEHC 30 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | [2022 No. 11 MCA] |
In the Matter of Section 44(5) of the Teachng Council Act 2001 as Amended and In the Matter of a Registered Teacher and on the Application of the Teaching Council
[2022] IEHC 30
[2022 No. 11 MCA]
THE HIGH COURT
Register of Teachers – Removal – Confirmation – Applicant seeking an order confirming the decision of the panel of the applicant’s disciplinary committee that the name of the respondent be removed from the Register of Teachers – Whether the sanction proposed was proportionate
Facts: The respondent, Mr Cooney, was arrested at a school on 21st May, 2019 and charged with 10 counts of defilement of a child under the age of 15. On foot of this, the executive committee of the applicant, the Teaching Council, decided to make a complaint to the applicant’s investigating committee. The investigating committee formed the opinion, pursuant to s. 42(9)(a) of the Teaching Council Act 2001, 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 applicant’s disciplinary tribunal. The panel of the applicant’s disciplinary committee found that all allegations were proven beyond a reasonable doubt by reason of the respondent’s admissions through his solicitor and the order made by the Circuit Court in January, 2021 setting out his convictions and sentence. The panel found that the respondent’s fitness to teach was affected by reason of both the serious nature of the offences and the respondent’s admission that it affected his fitness to teach. Pursuant to s. 44(1)(a) of the Act, the panel decided that the name of the respondent be removed from the Register of Teachers and that he be ineligible to apply, under s. 31 of the Act, to be restored to the register for a period of 30 years beginning with the date of removal. An application was brought by the applicant in the terms of s. 44(5) of the Act seeking an order from the High Court confirming the decision of the panel. Further, an order was sought to allow the applicant liberty to communicate the terms of the orders to the bodies identified in the notice of motion.
Held by Irvine P that she could see no good reason not to confirm the panel’s decision. She held that the respondent’s wrongdoing could hardly have been more egregious. Having had regard to the fact that the objectives sought to be achieved by the imposition of sanction include the protection of the public and the maintenance of trust and confidence in the teaching profession, she found it difficult to see how any lesser sanction would be appropriate. Neither would any lesser sanction in her view serve as an effective deterrent to any teacher considering engaging in heinous conduct of the type carried out by the respondent in the proceedings, that being a further objective of the sanction to be imposed.
Irvine P held that, given that she was fully satisfied that the sanction proposed was proportionate and fair and was reached after a full consideration of all material factors, she would confirm the decision of the applicant to remove the respondent’s name from the register and that he would not be eligible to apply to have his name restored to the register for 30 years from the date of its removal.
Application granted.
Ex Tempore judgment of Ms. Justice Irvine, President of the High Court, delivered on the 24th day of January 2022
The within proceedings concern an application brought by the applicant in the terms of s. 44(5) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 (“the Act”) seeking an order from the High Court confirming the decision of the panel of the applicant's disciplinary committee (“the panel”) that the name of the respondent be removed from the register and that he be ineligible to apply, under s. 31 of the Act, to be restored to the register for a period of 30 years beginning with the date of removal. Further, an order is sought to allow the applicant liberty to communicate the terms of the orders to the bodies identified in the Notice of Motion.
The application is brought by way of originating ex parte docket and grounded on the affidavit of Declan O'Leary, head of the disciplinary committee unit of the applicant, sworn on 13th January, 2022.
The applicant is a statutory body which established and maintains the Register of Teachers (“the register”). The respondent was at all material times a registered teacher.
On 10th June, 2019, the applicant's executive committee considered documentation before it, in particular an email from Detective Inspector Michael Lynch, Garda National Protective Services Bureau dated 30th May, 2019. This email reported that the respondent was arrested at a school on 21st May, 2019 and charged with 10 counts of defilement of a child under the age of 15. On foot of this, the executive committee decided to make a complaint to the applicant's investigating committee (“investigating committee”).
By way of High Court Order, perfected the 9th July, 2019, the respondent's name in the register was suspended until the completion of such steps as might be taken by the applicant pursuant to Part 5 of the Act or until further order of the Court.
The investigating committee met on four occasions. The final meeting occurred on 9th February, 2021. The investigating committee formed the opinion, pursuant to s. 42(9)(a) of the Act, 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 applicant's Disciplinary Tribunal. The grounds for the referral is set out in s. 42(1)(g) of the Act which provides that where a teacher has been convicted in the state of an offence triable on indictment the complaint may be considered by the disciplinary tribunal.
The panel of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial