Wright v Board of Management of Gorey Community School

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Court: High Court
• Judge: O'Sullivan J
• Judgment Date: 28 March 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] IEHC 37
• Docket Number: 3038p/2000
• Date: 28 March 2000

[2000] IEHC 37

THE HIGH COURT

3038p/2000

WRIGHT v. BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF GOREY COMMUNITY SCHOOL

BETWEEN

JAMES WRIGHT (A MINOR) SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND HELEN WRIGHT AND ALEXANDER WRIGHT (A MINOR) SUING BY HIS MOTHER AND NEXT FRIEND HELEN WRIGHT

PLAINTIFFS

AND

THE BOARD OF MANAGEMENT OF GOREY COMMUNITY SCHOOL

DEFENDANTS

Citations:

SMULLEN, STATE V DUFFY 1980 ILRM 46

STUDENT A & STUDENT B V DUBLIN SECONDARY SCHOOL UNREP KEARNS 25.11.1999

Synopsis

Practice and Procedure

Interlocutory injunction; plaintiffs suspended from school pending investigation into allegations of misconduct; plaintiffs have commenced proceedings claiming, inter alia, a declaration that unfair proceedings were adopted against them by the defendant which involved a breach of their constitutional right to education; plaintiffs seek an interlocutory injunction providing for their immediate reinstatement in school until the trial of their action; whether criteria for the granting of an interlocutory injunction have been satisfied.

Held: Interlocutory injunction refused.

Wright v. The Board of Management of Gorey Community School - High Court: O'Sullivan J. - 28/03/2000

The plaintiffs had allegedly been involved in behaviour involving the use of illicit substances. The defendants decide to expel one of the plaintiffs and suspend the other. The plaintiffs claimed that unfair procedures had been adopted in reaching the decision and that their constitutional right to education had been infringed. O’Sullivan J held that the court was not deciding at this stage whether fair procedures had been adopted. The requirements of maintaining discipline within a school did not imply that the formalities of a courtroom situation were required. Nonetheless the parties against whom allegations were made should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to rebut same. In the circumstances the plaintiffs had established that there was a fair issue to be tried. Damages would not be an adequate remedy. However the balance of convenience favoured the refusal of the relief sought and accordingly the application for reinstatement of the plaintiffs was dismissed.

O'Sullivan J

PRELIMINARY

2 Counsel have requested me to impose limitations on the reporting of this case. Specifically they have asked that I direct that the names of the Plaintiffs, who are aged approximately 15 and 13 years respectively, the name of their school and the name of any minor referred to in the Affidavits should be disguised or deleted.

3 Counsel have been unable to refer me to any considered authority on the point, and indeed have intimidated that such authority as does exist, suggests that I do not have jurisdiction to make such an Order. I note in particular that the then President of the High Court, Finlay P, in The State (Derek Smullen and Declan Smullen) -v- Duffy & Ors., ( 1980: ILRM: 46) made no such Order and his judgment includes the names of several school children involved without any attempt at disguise. Furthermore, Kearns J inStudent A and Student B -v- Dublin Secondary School,(Unreported: 25th November, 1999) indicated that the matter is not free from doubt and in that I respectfully agree with him.

4 I agree with Counsel that it would be desirable that the names of all minors involved in this case should be disguised or deleted, but in the absence of clear jurisdiction, I consider myself bound to obey the spirit as well as the letter of the imperative in the Constitution to the effect that justice shall be administered in public save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law.

5 In my view, it is not for me so to prescribe. It is for the Oireachtas. I would be the first to complain if the Oireachtas attempted to pass a law curtailing or determining an issue properly before me, citing indeed the doctrine of the separation of powers, itself contained in the Constitution.

6 The other side of that coin is that I should be scrupulous and disciplined not to make a new law where there is a lacuna, as it seems to me, which I think should be filled, no matter how desirable, and I think it is indeed desirable that minors should be protected in such a case as this. It is for the law maker and not for me, however, to change the law if they think fit. Accordingly, I must decline to impose any reporting restrictions.

INTRODUCTION

7 By letter dated the 25th February, 2000, the principal of the Defendant school wrote to the parents of the Plaintiffs as follows:-

"The events of the night of the 4th February, 2000 were discussed in detail by the Board of Management last night. The Board takes a very serious view of what occurred on that night. Taking into account all the information available to the Board, they have made the following decisions:-"

1. That following breach of contract on the evidence presented and on further discussion that James Wright is expelled from school. The school will assist in finding another school for James Wright.

2. That on the evidence presented, and on further discussion, that Alex Wright is suspended until the 2nd May, 2000. Before Alex returns to school, it will be necessary for parents and students to sign a contract of good behaviour."

8 The Plaintiffs had been suspended from school the previous week pending investigation into the relevant allegations, and in this application now before me, they seek immediate reinstatement in their school until the trial of their action, in which they claim amongst other things, a declaration that unfair procedures were adopted against them by the Defendant which involved a breach of their constitutional right to education. It is suggested that this case would not be heard for a year, so that the effect of their application, if successful, would be that the two Plaintiffs would be permitted to continue attending the Defendant's school for the next year or so.

ALLEGATION

9 The first Plaintiff is just 15. The second, his brother, is just short of 13. The allusion in the letter which I have just quoted to the events of the 4th February, 2000 is a reference to an all night hockey marathon put on by the Defendant's school for charity on that night. One of the other students, a 13 year old girl, told her mother that she had not spent the night at the marathon but rather had been on the GAA pitch where she got drunk and smoked cannabis which she said had been bought by the first Plaintiff and delivered to the school by the second Plaintiff. Her mother reported this allegation to the gardai who investigated the matter. This girl altered the details of her allegations at least once.

BACKGROUND

10 The previous September, the first Plaintiff had been suspended for admittedly bringing cannabis to the school and apparently sharing it with his brother (although this fact is contested) and with a number of other pupils. On that occasion, both the first named Plaintiff and his parents signed an acknowledgement in the context of the lifting by the Defendant of an indefinite suspension of the first Plaintiff. That acknowledgement reads as follows:-

11 2 "1. I James Wright clearly understand the seriousness of my misconduct, which resulted in my suspension.

12 2. I understand that any recurrence or similar activity will result in immediate permanent expulsion.

13 3. I will sign on at reception during lunch time each day for the remainder of this year or until told otherwise.

14 4. My parents agree to inform the school if they have any reason to believe I am involved in any activity to do with illegal drugs."

THE PROCESS

15 The present allegation concerning...