The Court of Appeal has upheld a High Court decision refusing Maureen and Dan Arnold leave to seek judicial review of their convictions for failing to comply with school attendance notices concerning their daughter, Sorcha.
The parents were each convicted in the District Court on 10 April 2015 of an offence under the Education (Welfare) Act 2000. They were fined €300, with eight weeks to pay, and received three-day prison terms in default. They did not pay the fines within that period or appeal to the Circuit Court. The Court of Appeal judgment said they faced the prospect of serving the prison terms unless the convictions were quashed.
The notices required the parents to arrange for Sorcha to attend Cólaiste an Craoibhín in Fermoy. The judgment records that she was not attending a recognised school and that the parents had not registered her with the Child and Family Agency for education outside such a school. The parents disputed the notices’ validity and argued, among other things, that they should have been prosecuted together as a family and that there had been insufficient evidence to convict them.
The Court of Appeal rejected those arguments. It said criminal liability was individual, the School Attendance Act 1926 had been repealed before the notices were issued, and evidence presented in the District Court supported the convictions. The judgment’s account of that hearing says the parents could cross-examine witnesses, give evidence and make submissions; they did not cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
The parents also argued that the High Court hearing was unfair because the Child and Family Agency’s solicitor filed an account of the District Court hearing late. The Court of Appeal described the late filing as unsatisfactory, but said the High Court judge had offered an adjournment and the parents chose to proceed without disputing the account’s accuracy.
On appeal, the parents sought to introduce a constitutional challenge to the 2000 Act. The Court of Appeal refused permission to add that ground. It said they had presented no evidence in the District Court that Sorcha was receiving the minimum education required by the Constitution, and therefore had no arguable basis, on the facts of their case, to challenge the relevant provisions.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s refusal of leave to apply for judicial review; the Court of Appeal did not conduct a full hearing of the judicial review merits. It affirmed the refusal of leave, leaving the District Court convictions in place.