The Supreme Court has dismissed University College Cork’s appeal against a High Court declaration that its disciplinary procedures, as applied to Professor Connell M. Fanning, were unlawful and beyond the university’s powers.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Kearns on 28 October 2008, concerned UCC’s response to an incident in the campus staff car park on 31 August 2001. Joan Buckley, a university staff member, reported that Fanning grabbed and shook her by the neck through her car window during a heated exchange. Fanning accepted that an incident occurred but denied assaulting her. There were no witnesses, and the relevant security camera was not working.
Buckley initially said she wanted to report the incident but did not wish to make a complaint. After UCC began an investigation, her solicitors said she would take no further steps and would not participate. An investigator appointed by the university proceeded without either Buckley or Fanning, relying on documents and interviews with others. He concluded that a prima facie case existed for consideration under UCC’s disciplinary procedures. The Supreme Court did not decide whether the alleged assault occurred.
UCC’s procedures classified assault as gross misconduct and provided for possible suspension, demotion or dismissal. Fanning, appointed under university statutes before the Universities Act 1997, obtained High Court injunctions preventing disciplinary action and publication of the outcome of a university hearing. A disciplinary committee later held a hearing, but its result was sealed pending the court case.
The legal issue on appeal was what disciplinary powers UCC could exercise over Fanning given his pre-1997 appointment. The Supreme Court said the National University of Ireland Senate alone had power to remove him from office under the applicable statutes. UCC could address matters concerning his specified teaching duties through the limited procedures then available, but the 1997 Act and later UCC rules could not reduce his existing tenure protections without his agreement.
The Court held that the university’s procedures could not be used to suspend or demote Fanning. It upheld the High Court’s declaration and dismissed UCC’s appeal. The Court said it was unnecessary to decide other issues argued during the appeal because they were moot in light of its conclusions.