Judgment: 2018-08-13 · Court archive

High Court confirms Teaching Council decision to remove anonymised teacher from register

The court found no procedural unfairness or unreasonable decision in the Council’s inquiry and sanction. It also continued a ban on publishing details that could identify five pupils.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 582

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • five pupils
What

The court found no procedural unfairness or unreasonable decision in the Council’s inquiry and sanction. It also continued a ban on publishing details that could identify five pupils.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has confirmed the Teaching Council’s decision to remove an anonymised teacher from the register after a disciplinary panel found five allegations of professional misconduct proven.

The High Court has confirmed the Teaching Council’s decision to remove an anonymised teacher from the register after a disciplinary panel found five allegations of professional misconduct proven.

The case concerned an incident at an unnamed school on 7 March 2012. The allegations were that the teacher applied, or caused others to apply, sellotape to the mouths of five pupils. The teacher denied the allegations in written submissions and did not attend or have legal representation at the disciplinary inquiry.

The panel found all five allegations proven beyond reasonable doubt. It concluded that each allegation, individually and together, amounted to professional misconduct. The panel removed the teacher from the register and ruled that she could not apply for restoration for one year from the date of removal.

The Council applied to the High Court under section 44(5) of the Teaching Council Acts for confirmation of that decision. The court said its role at this stage was limited: it was not hearing an appeal on the merits. It had to confirm the Council’s decision unless there was good reason not to, including procedural impropriety, a failure of fair procedures or an unreasonable decision.

The judge was satisfied that the teacher had received notice of the sanction on 29 March 2018, when documents were delivered through the letterbox at the address held on the Council’s register. She had not applied to the High Court to annul the sanction within the 21-day period. The judge also found no procedural unfairness in the disciplinary process and concluded that the Council’s decision was not unreasonable. The application was granted and the decision confirmed.

The court separately continued a prohibition on publishing the teacher’s name or material that might identify her. It said identifying the teacher, the school’s principal, or the school and its location could create a strong risk of identifying the five pupils, whose privacy interests outweighed the public interest in publishing those details. The judgment does not identify the teacher, school, principal or pupils.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review