The High Court ruled that an independent inquiry into allegations against a teacher could hear video recordings of former pupils’ interviews and related expert evidence, subject to safeguards. But it said the inquiry should not examine allegations concerning one pupil to the extent that they were the same as allegations underlying criminal charges on which the teacher had been acquitted.
The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 21 July 2010, arose from proceedings between teacher Patrick McGlinchey and Síle Ryan, sued as chairperson of the board of management of St Vincent’s School in Lisnagry, County Limerick. The court was considering disputes following a settlement of earlier judicial review proceedings, not deciding whether the abuse allegations were true.
The teacher had been acquitted of all criminal charges in 2002. A Health Board investigation later found allegations concerning nine pupils credible, found allegations concerning another inconclusive, and concluded he remained a risk to vulnerable children. Those were the Health Board’s findings, not findings made in this case.
Under a 2009 settlement, an adjudicator was appointed to determine whether allegations were well founded and whether the teacher posed a threat to children. The teacher would resign if the findings went against him; a favourable finding would allow him to resume teaching. At the inquiry in December 2009, the adjudicator ruled that he could consider recorded interviews and expert evidence even though the pupil complainants, with one possible exception, would not testify. The teacher then withdrew, saying through counsel that he would take the matter elsewhere. The adjudicator treated the inquiry as ended.
Justice Laffoy found that the proposed approach to the recordings and expert evidence would have provided fair procedures under the terms agreed by the parties. She noted that the teacher could challenge the material through cross-examination of its authors, his own evidence and expert witnesses. The inquiry was an agreed employment process, and its terms expressly provided for fair procedures and accepted evidential rules.
On the acquittal issue, the court held that the adjudicator was wrong to allow allegations concerning pupil D.M. to proceed insofar as they were the same as allegations underlying the criminal charges. Requiring the teacher to face a further inquiry into those same issues would be oppressive and unfair. The judgment qualified that conclusion because the inquiry complaint listed several allegations, while the precise criminal charges were not before the court. It made no equivalent ruling on other allegations against D.M. that were not shown to overlap with the charges.
The court did not decide the contractual consequences of the teacher’s withdrawal, because the parties had made no submissions on that issue. Nor did it determine whether he could return to work, whether disciplinary action could proceed, or the damages claim. It said the case would continue, and directed that both sides be heard on how to bring the proceedings to a conclusion.