A school principal has failed in a High Court challenge against a finding of poor professional performance against him by the Teaching Council over a delay in informing the parents of a young autistic pupil of an allegation that a teacher had mistreated their son.
The principal, whose identity cannot be published, also sought a judicial review of the decision of a disciplinary panel of the Teaching Council that he should be sanctioned for such a finding with an admonishment.
The inquiry, which issued its findings in March 2024, cleared the teacher of a number of allegations of inappropriate treatment of the nine-year-old, non-verbal pupil on two dates in February 2019, including claims that he “reefed” earphones off the boy’s head in class.
However, it found the principal guilty of poor professional performance over a 19-week delay in notifying the boy’s parents about the complaint against the teacher.
It also concluded that the principal had breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers in relation to the welfare of students and communications.
The principal maintained he had done nothing wrong and that he had relied on a Department of Education circular on managing disciplinary processes, which he claimed precluded him from sharing information about the allegation to the child’s parents.
Counsel for the principal also outlined several other grounds why the legal challenge against the findings of the inquiry should be upheld.
They included that there was no principal of a primary school on the disciplinary panel and the failure of the inquiry to hear expert evidence before reaching its decision that the principal was guilty of poor professional performance.
In addition, counsel claimed there was an excessive delay by the Teaching Council in dealing with the matter as well as the disciplinary panel failing to give adequate reasons for its conclusions.
The principal’s legal representative also argued that there was objective bias by the disciplinary panel because a member of the Teaching Council’s disciplinary committee sat in the public gallery alongside the mother of the child during the inquiry.
The High Court also heard legal argument that the disciplinary panel had erred in law by reversing the burden of proof in reaching its findings and that the second lowest available sanction of admonishment meant the principal’s conduct had not reached the threshold for a finding of poor professional performance.
The principal carried out an internal investigation after a complaint was made against the teacher by a special needs assistant on February 12th, 2019.
Unknown to the principal, the SNA had also told the boy’s parents about the matter around the same time.
The principal subsequently concluded that the allegation was unfounded but decided to keep the teacher under surveillance for a period to ensure his behaviour towards the child was appropriate, during which the principal also dealt with Tusla and the Children’s Ombudsman.
He notified the SNA of his decision on May 22nd, 2019 and the school’s board of management on June 10th, 2019.
The principal was advised by the school’s solicitor and the Irish Primary Principals’ Network that the boy’s parents should be informed of the matter, which he did on June 26th, 2019.
In his ruling refusing all the reliefs sought by the principal, Mr Justice Anthony Barr said he was satisfied the three-member disciplinary panel had more than adequate expertise to deal with the issues, notwithstanding that none of them were principals of a primary school at the time or that no expert evidence was required.
Mr Justice Barr said the 2017 guidelines cited by the principal’s legal team were not part of the case made at the inquiry, while the disciplinary panel’s decision was “not unreasonable or illogical.”
“The court is satisfied that the reasons given by the disciplinary panel were cogent and coherent and accorded with common sense. Their conclusion that the parents of a vulnerable child should be told of the making of the allegation by a responsible person accords with the standards that sensible people would apply,” he added.
The judge noted that if the panel had agreed with the principal that it was appropriate to keep the parents “in the dark” about a credible complaint of abuse of their child for 19 weeks, it could be seen as being irrational “by the standards of ordinary people in society.”
He also said the panel was entitled to reject the principal’s explanation for his inaction in telling the parents about the allegation.
Mr Justice Barr said the principal could not now seek to rely on a delay by the Teaching Council when it had not been raised as an issue with the disciplinary tribunal.
He also dismissed the claim of objective bias as being “without substance” as it had not been raised during the substantive hearings.
The judge noted that the principal should not have waited until he was the subject of an adverse findings before highlighting it.
He also rejected the claim that the panel had failed to take account of the once-off nature of the principal’s conduct.
Mr Justice Barr said the panel could not be prevented from making a finding of poor professional performance just because it was about a once-off occurrence.
On the challenge to the sanction, the judge said the panel’s conclusion about the gravity of the principal’s conduct could not be described as “unreasonable or irrational.”
He said the sanction of admonishment was not inconsistent with the finding that the conduct fell within the mid-range of poor professional performance.
