The High Court found that Tusla’s assessment of a child sexual abuse allegation against an anonymised secondary school teacher, and the subsequent appeal review, were fundamentally flawed. Justice Meenan said the teacher had not been afforded basic fair procedures. The court reserved the specific relief to be granted for further submissions from counsel.
The case concerned a female pupil’s 2015 complaint. Her written statement described an alleged whispered invitation to call the teacher at home and an alleged slap on the bottom. The court found that Tusla’s written version of the allegation materially differed from that statement, yet the teacher was required to answer the agency’s version.
The teacher denied slapping the pupil. He said he may have raised a hand to prevent her from falling amid movement in the classroom, but denied any deliberate or improper contact. He acknowledged making a comment that he described as banter and accepted he should not have made it.
After hearing the teacher’s account, the social worker did not put it to the pupil for comment. The judge said this was a serious departure from fair procedures. He added that the agency was not necessarily required to arrange cross-examination, but had at least to put the teacher’s account to the complainant. The judgment noted that, during a later District Court prosecution, the complainant said she had not seen the teacher slap her. The criminal prosecution failed; the High Court was reviewing the agency’s administrative process, not deciding the criminal charge.
The judge also found that Tusla relied on the 2011 allegation and other concerns without giving them proper context or seeking the teacher’s response. The 2011 inquiry had found no evidence of sexual abuse, while raising concerns about professional boundaries. The High Court said Tusla’s 2017 founded finding of child sexual abuse had failed to give sufficient weight to that outcome and had taken account of other events that were not put to the teacher.
An appeal panel upheld Tusla’s conclusion in 2018, saying the assessment had followed policy and fair procedures. The High Court held that this view was irrational and unreasonable given the problems apparent in the documentation the panel reviewed. It rejected an objection that the judicial review challenge to the 2017 decision was out of time, noting that the teacher had pursued the appeal process, which included review of fair procedures.
The court concluded that the applicant was entitled to the reliefs sought and said it would hear counsel about those remedies. The judgment does not specify the final orders made.