The Court of Appeal has dismissed a school’s appeal against an order allowing two pupils to return to class while challenges to their exclusion were under way, but ruled that the order should last only until the appeals were heard.
In a judgment delivered on 31 July 2019, the court upheld the substance of an interlocutory injunction granted by the High Court. It varied the order to require the pupils’ readmission pending the hearing of the appeal process, with that limit only. The Court of Appeal did not determine the substantive judicial review challenges to the school’s disciplinary process.
The case followed an incident in October 2018 in a sixth-year construction class at St. Q’s College. A pupil, who was not a party to the proceedings, snorted a white powder that may or may not have been cocaine; it was never analysed. The two applicants were not alleged to have used the substance. They filmed the incident, and footage appeared on Snapchat.
The school’s Board of Management later formed the opinion that expulsion was the appropriate sanction. It said the filming and online posting involved inappropriate use of information and communications technology, breached the school’s code, and brought the college’s reputation into disrepute. The boys were suspended while the board considered the matter further. Their families said school staff had assured them the pupils would not get into trouble; staff disputed this. The Court of Appeal said it could not resolve that conflict at this stage and considered it had little bearing on the appeal.
The High Court had ordered the college to permit both pupils to attend for the 2018/19 academic year while the proceedings were pending. The Court of Appeal agreed with the High Court’s assessment that the pupils had a strong arguable case and that the greater risk of injustice lay in keeping them out of school during their Leaving Certificate year. It noted Boy B’s dyslexia and previously good disciplinary record, the boys’ efforts to remove or limit access to the footage, and an education welfare officer’s view that both would be better back at school.
Meanwhile, statutory appeals against the board’s decision had concluded: Boy B’s appeal succeeded, restoring his pupil status, while Boy C’s failed. The Court of Appeal said Boy C’s continued attendance under the High Court order after his appeal failed was unsatisfactory. It held that the interim protection should have been limited to the conclusion of the appeal process; any further regime could be considered in the separate judicial review proceedings concerning the unsuccessful appeal.
The court therefore dismissed the school’s appeal and varied the High Court order to limit readmission to the period pending the hearing of the appeals.