The High Court ordered the State Examinations Commission (SEC) to determine a student’s Leaving Certificate appeal by noon on 28 September 2018, after finding that its appeals process had delayed a decision in a way that breached her rights. The order led to a higher grade and an offer of a place in University College Dublin’s veterinary medicine course, which she accepted.
The ruling concerned a 2018 higher-level business paper completed in Irish. The student had received 353 marks, including Irish-language marks, and a H2 grade. The court identified a calculation error: marks of 17, 19 and 30 for one question had been added as 56 instead of 66. Correcting the ten-mark shortfall, while accounting for a separate one-mark error, appeared likely to raise the paper to a H1. The SEC’s appeal later upgraded the paper to H1.
The student had 554 Leaving Certificate points. UCD’s veterinary course required 560 points in the first CAO offer round and 555 in the second. She was therefore one point short after that round. The judgment said she discovered the marking error when viewing her scripts on 31 August. The SEC sent the matter to a formal appeal rather than its faster review outside the appeal process, which the court found officials had applied consistently with the published policy.
The difficulty was timing. UCD had set 30 September as its cut-off for offers for the current academic year, after which places would be deferred for a year. The SEC had been unaware of that date. A decision on the usual appeal timetable was expected on 10 October, too late for the student to take up a 2018-19 place. The court had already ordered UCD to keep a place open while the case was heard.
The judge held that access to higher education engages fundamental rights, including the right to earn a livelihood, and that the appeal system’s delay was disproportionate, unfair and unequal in its effect. He also found the SEC had failed to account for relevant course-admission deadlines and had not provided a timely decision. He did not rule that the separate, faster review process had been wrongly refused, or that UCD’s 30 September cut-off was unlawful.
The SEC complied with the order, and UCD offered the student a place, which she accepted. She joined the course on 1 October, having missed its first month. The court refused the SEC’s application to stay the order pending appeal. It said the developments had effectively made the proceedings moot but reserved the question of costs for a later hearing.