The High Court refused a judicial review challenge by eight applicants over the Minister for Education and Science’s refusal to consider a proposed change in Scoil Naomh Therese’s status without the school patron’s consent.
In a judgment delivered on 1 May 2009, Mr Justice Ó Néill held that requiring the patron’s approval was neither unreasonable nor unlawful. The applicants had sought declarations that consent was not a precondition to recognition as a Gaelscoil or co-educational school, orders requiring the Minister to decide the school’s applications, and a declaration concerning replies to letters in English under the Official Languages Act 2003. The judgment’s concluding paragraph refused the relief sought; it did not grant an order directing the Minister to decide the applications.
The school’s board applied for Gaelscoil recognition in 1995, but no decision had been made on that application. It sought a change to co-educational status in 1998 and 1999; the Minister refused both requests. The school began enrolling boys in 2000. Further applications for Gaelscoil and co-educational status were made in 2004. The Minister’s department said patron approval was required for a change in status. In December 2008, the patron said he did not oppose the school operating as a full Irish-language school and was willing to allow boys then enrolled to finish their primary education there, but did not consent to co-education.
The judge first rejected arguments that the dispute was private and that the judicial review was premature. He found that the challenged refusal involved the Minister acting in a public capacity under statute, and that the patron’s position showed the application was not awaiting a decision that might follow a report commissioned by the patron. He also found the applicants had standing: all eight had been management-board members when proceedings began in 2006.
On the main issue, the judge considered the Education Act 1998 and the roles it assigns to patrons and management boards. He described the patron’s role as prior to and more enduring than the board’s, and concluded that a change from a girls’ school to a co-educational school would fundamentally alter the school’s nature and operation. The Minister could therefore follow a policy requiring patron approval for a status change. The National Schools Rules did not alter that conclusion, the judgment said, because they were an administrative circular without statutory force.
The court also rejected the argument that parents’ constitutional or statutory right to choose a school required the school to change its status to match their preference. The judgment does not record a separate determination of the applicants’ claim about English-language replies under the Official Languages Act.