The Supreme Court has dismissed Patrick Kelly’s application for leave to seek judicial review of a decision by Trinity College’s Visitors, ruling that he had not shown an arguable ground for challenging their conclusion that they lacked jurisdiction over his complaint.
The Visitors decided on 9 November 2005 that they could not hear Kelly’s complaint of bullying against a member of College staff. Their decision followed an investigation by Professor John McGilp, who found no corroborating evidence for Kelly’s allegations and described the complaint as unfounded. The College’s Board made no decision on that report.
Kelly argued that the Board’s failure to decide the complaint should count as a decision, allowing him to appeal to the Visitors under Chapter III, section 6 of the College Statutes. The Visitors held that the provision required an actual, positive decision by the Board. In a judgment delivered on 14 December 2007, Fennelly J said they were correct: the statutes contained no provision deeming a decision to have been made after a period of inaction.
Kelly sought judicial review on grounds including alleged objective bias by Pro-Chancellor Professor Sagarra, an unfair process for nominating the other Visitor, and errors concerning the Visitors’ jurisdiction. The Supreme Court said Kelly had not established even an arguable case of bias. His reliance on Professor Sagarra’s former College employment and her honorary position as Pro-Chancellor did not, without other evidence, support a reasonable apprehension of bias.
The Court also rejected the challenge to the nomination process. The Government chose the second Visitor from two people nominated by the University Senate; the Court said this did not call the Visitors’ independence or integrity into question.
Kelly advanced a separate argument based on the University’s historic royal charters, claiming they gave the Visitors jurisdiction independent of a Board decision. The Court declined to entertain it because it had not been set out as a ground in his judicial review statement or advanced to the Visitors. It said reviewing the decision on that basis would amount to reviewing a decision the Visitors had never made.
The ruling concerned permission to bring judicial review, not a fresh determination of whether bullying occurred. The Supreme Court dismissed the application for leave. It did not adjudicate the underlying complaint against the staff member.