Woodcock v Board of Management of Mountrath Community School

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Binchy
• Judgment Date: 29 March 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] IEHC 338
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [2016 No. 987 J.R.]
• Date: 29 March 2019

BETWEEN

JOAN WOODCOCK

APPLICANT

AND

BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF MOUNTRATH COMMUNITY SCHOOL

RESPONDENT

[2019] IEHC 338

[2016 No. 987 J.R.]

THE HIGH COURT

JUDICIAL REVIEW

Judicial review – Disciplinary hearing – Objective bias – Applicant seeking judicial review – Whether there was objective bias on the part of the respondent

Facts: The applicant, Ms Woodcock, sought leave to take proceedings by way of judicial review against the respondent, Board of Management of Mountrath Community School, and, in para. D of her statement of grounds, sought the following reliefs against the respondent: “(1) An injunction by way of judicial review restraining the respondent from taking any further steps in a disciplinary hearing involving allegations of misconduct against the applicant purportedly pursuant to s. 24(3) of the Education Act 1998; (2) A declaration by way of judicial review that the requirements of natural and constitutional justice require that any disciplinary hearing into the applicant’s conduct must be conducted by an independent person, other than the School Principal, who, by reason of being the complainant in the matter and by reason of past differences with the applicant is conflicted in the inquiry and cannot act as judge in her own cause; (3) A declaration that any disciplinary hearing into the applicant’s conduct must be governed by the principles nemo iudex in causa sua and audi alterem partem, such that the process must be carried out by an independent person who is not conflicted by actual or objective bias; (4) A declaration that s. 24 of the Education Act 1998, does not provide for the disciplinary process which the respondent has threatened to conduct against the applicant, namely a process involving the procedures set out within the document entitled ‘Towards 2016 – revised procedures for suspension and dismissal of teachers’; (5) Certiorari of the decision of the respondent Board communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8th June, 2016, rejecting the applicant’s complaint against the School Principal; (6) An order pursuant to O. 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts extending time for the relief at paragraph d(v) above …” The proceedings came before the High Court by way of a single “telescoped” hearing. Four main arguments were advanced on behalf of the applicant: (i) the Principal should have had no involvement either in the applicant’s own complaint regarding the letter that the Principal sent to Medmark or in relation to the proposed investigation into the conduct of the applicant; (ii) the respondent had already prejudged the issue of the applicant’s guilt or innocence; (iii) the Principal was connected to the investigation into the applicant’s complaint in connection with the Medmark letter which gave rise to a concern of objective bias on the part of the respondent in the handling of the applicant’s complaint; (iv) the process to which the applicant was being subjected was not provided for in s. 24 of the 1998 Act.

Held by Binchy J that the applicant had an alternative remedy offered to her by the solicitors for the respondent in their letter of 24th June, 2016; this was a tailor-made grievance procedure which she was informed she could still avail of, notwithstanding the decision already made by the respondent. Binchy J held that the applicant might reasonably have been expected to exhaust this alternative remedy before seeking to challenge the decision of 7th June, 2016 by way of judicial review. For those reasons, Binchy J refused the relief sought in paras. D (5) and (6) of the applicant’s statement of grounds. Binchy J rejected the argument that Towards 2016 was made ultra vires, and that it did not form part of the applicant’s contractual relationship with the respondent. Therefore, Binchy J refused the relief sought in para. D (4) of the statement of grounds.

Binchy J held that any concerns the applicant had about fair procedures and bias or pre-judgment were adequately addressed by the appointment of an independent person to adjudicate upon the respondent’s complaint. Accordingly, Binchy J refused leave to bring proceedings seeking the reliefs sought at paras. D (1)-(3) of the statement of grounds by way of judicial review.

Leave refused.

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Binchy delivered on the 29th day of March, 2019

1 These proceedings came before the Court by way of a single ‘telescoped’ hearing, whereby the applicant seeks leave to take proceedings by way of judicial review against the respondent and, in para. D of her statement of grounds, seeks the following reliefs against the respondent:-

‘(1) An injunction by way of judicial review restraining the respondent from taking any further steps in a disciplinary hearing involving allegations of misconduct against the applicant purportedly pursuant to s. 24(3) of the Education Act 1998;

(2) A declaration by way of judicial review that the requirements of natural and constitutional justice require that any disciplinary hearing into the applicant's conduct must be conducted by an independent person, other than the School Principal, who, by reason of being the complainant in the matter and by reason of past differences with the applicant is conflicted in the inquiry and cannot act as judge in her own cause;

(3) A declaration that any disciplinary hearing into the applicant's conduct must be governed by the principles nemo iudex in causa sua and audi alterem partem, such that the process must be carried out by an independent person who is not conflicted by actual or objective bias;

(4) A declaration that s. 24 of the Education Act 1998, does not provide for the disciplinary process which the respondent has threatened to conduct against the applicant, namely a process involving the procedures set out within the document entitled “ Towards 2016 – revised procedures for suspension and dismissal of teachers”;

(5) Certiorari of the decision of the respondent Board communicated to the applicant by letter dated 8th June, 2016, rejecting the applicant's complaint against the School Principal;

(6) An order pursuant to O. 84 of the Rules of the Superior Courts extending time for the relief at paragraph d(v) above …’

Background

2 According to the applicant, in 2011, she was concerned about the behaviour of one of her teaching colleagues towards her, and she discussed this with the then Principal, Mr. Gleeson. The applicant maintains that she mentioned this in confidence only and was not making a complaint, but the then Principal treated it as a complaint, as a result of which the complaint was disclosed to other members of staff in the respondent school. The applicant says that this led to her becoming somewhat marginalised and isolated within the school, as a result of which she became stressed and anxious.

3 Mr. Gleeson retired in January 2015, and was replaced by the then Deputy Principal, and the now current Principal, Ms. Siobhan McCarthy. In October 2015, on medical advice, the applicant took sick leave owing to stress. At the end of November, 2015, she was requested to attend for medical assessment by a company called Medmark, to determine whether or not she was fit to continue working. This assessment was compulsory because of the number of sick days already taken by the applicant in the course of that year, but that aside, Ms. McCarthy deposed that she considered it desirable in view of the nature of the reason behind the applicant's most recent absence from work, i.e. stress. She was assessed firstly by a Dr. Ryan of Medmark, and secondly, upon Dr. Ryan's recommendation, by a psychiatrist in St. James's Hospital, a Dr. Cooney. It is not in dispute that each of these doctors considered that the applicant was fit for work, although Dr. Ryan had reservations to which I refer to below. Their reports are dated 8th December, 2015, and 23rd February, 2016, respectively.

4 The applicant was examined by Dr. Ryan on 2nd December, 2015. She claims that following upon her return to work, she was asked by colleagues how she had fared at the medical assessment and she had replied that she thought that the assessment went well and that she found Dr. Ryan to be friendly and well disposed towards her. She claims that these comments must have filtered back to Ms. McCarthy because on 7th December, 2015, before Dr. Ryan issued his report, but after his examination of the applicant, Ms. McCarthy sent a letter to Dr. Ryan in which she expressed concern about the mental well being of the applicant by reference to the behaviour of the applicant. Ms. McCarthy gave particular instances of this behaviour and expressed concern about what she described as elements of paranoia and erratic behaviour on the part of the applicant. In the letter, Ms. McCarthy also says that while she has yet to see the report of Dr. Ryan, the applicant had given the school to understand that Dr. Ryan's report would be ‘sympathetic towards’ the applicant.

5 This letter is of some considerable importance in these proceedings, because it is the applicant's contention that this letter was sent by Ms. McCarthy with the intention of influencing the findings of Dr. Ryan in a negative way. In the letter, Ms. McCarthy states, inter alia:-

‘Ms. Hallissey [the applicant's family name prior to marriage] has been pursuing a case of bullying against members of the staff and the management of Mountrath Community School since February 2014. During this time Ms. Hallissey has produced no substantiating evidence of the alleged bullying. During this time, Ms. Hallissey has also displayed varying degrees of anxiety and paranoia. Prior to your meeting with Ms. Hallissey on 2nd December, 2015, I rang you to alert you to my concerns, while all the time trying not to colour your examination of Ms. Hallissey. Since your meeting with Ms. Hallissey, Ms. Hallissey returned to work on 3rd December ….

….. Over the weekend of 4th December, 2015, Ms....