The High Court has granted an interim injunction allowing an anonymised 15-year-old student to return to School Z while his judicial review proceedings continue. The order is conditional and does not decide whether the school’s disciplinary process was lawful or what final disciplinary outcome should follow.
The student, identified in the judgment as X, had been suspended from 3 December 2018 after admitting to smoking cannabis with others, keeping cannabis in woods behind the school and discussing obtaining or smoking it with fellow pupils. He denied bringing cannabis to school or supplying it to other pupils. The judgment said those allegations of supply had not been established.
A committee hearing an appeal under section 29 of the Education Act 1998 had rejected the student’s parents’ appeal against the suspension on 15 February 2019. The school’s planned disciplinary hearing had not taken place. The High Court said it would not examine the complaints about the school’s process or the section 29 appeal in this interim application. It said the student had shown a strong, clear case for the substantive judicial review, while stressing that this did not mean he would succeed.
The court weighed the school’s interest in addressing illegal drugs against the effects of the prolonged suspension. The student had received home study and limited remote assistance, and was approaching his Junior Certificate examinations. The judge said the suspension had left him isolated at home and that his general health appeared to be suffering. The court described the decision as a close-run matter.
Applying the Supreme Court’s criteria in Okunade, the judge concluded that, on balance, the student should return to school immediately pending the outcome of the proceedings. The court allowed the Board of Management to apply to lift the injunction if the head-teacher had serious concerns about the student’s behaviour after his return. The judge said further involvement with illegal drugs could provide a strong basis for such an application.
The court also proposed that the Child and Family Agency meet the student promptly and prepare a report on his welfare and schooling. The report is to be provided to his parents, the head-teacher and the Board’s chairman. The Board may seek to lift the injunction if the report raises particular concerns, and counsel for the student must undertake to include it in the materials for the substantive hearing.
The judgment records that the substantive hearing was expected in April or possibly May 2019. The interim order leaves that challenge unresolved.