The High Court has ruled that a decision permanently expelling three Dundalk Institute of Technology students following a series of fights must be set aside.
Christina Igweze and Margaret Eyong Taku were studying mental health nursing, while Wendy Briggs was studying bioscience. They were involved in a number of altercations with each other on January 30 and 31, 2024, including fights on the college campus and a later fight behind a shop in Dundalk.
The students did not dispute before the college Appeals Committee that the incidents had occurred. Their solicitor accepted they had behaved badly, said they had resolved their differences and relied on mitigating factors including their previous disciplinary records, academic progress and desire to resume their studies.
A Disciplinary Committee had ordered their permanent expulsion on February 19, 2024. The Appeals Committee upheld that sanction on April 23.
Mr Justice Barr found that the college's disciplinary code gave the Appeals Committee power to conduct a full fresh, or de novo, appeal. It could uphold, set aside or vary the original penalty. Instead, the committee had approached its task as a review of whether the earlier disciplinary decision should stand.
The judge also held that fairness required the Appeals Committee to assess proportionality before choosing a sanction. That meant considering aggravating and mitigating factors and the full range of lesser sanctions available under the college code.
Barr J found no such assessment had been carried out. The committee did not explain why permanent expulsion was necessary, whether lesser or combined sanctions had been considered, or whether the applicants had differing levels of culpability.
The court was particularly concerned about the potential consequences for the two mental health nursing students, finding that an expulsion for fighting could seriously damage their prospects of working in that field.
The judge therefore held that the April 2024 decision should be quashed and proposed sending the matter back to a newly constituted Appeals Committee for fresh consideration. Final orders and costs were left for later submissions.