The High Court has refused a school board’s application to join as a notice party in a teacher’s judicial review challenge to the HSE’s handling of child abuse allegations against him.
Mr Justice Keane ruled that the board was not directly affected by the outcome of the proceedings. The decision concerns only whether the board could join the case; it does not decide the teacher’s substantive challenge to the HSE’s assessment.
The teacher, identified in the judgment as N.L., seeks to challenge the HSE’s conclusion that the outcome of its assessment was “inconclusive”. He had been acquitted of criminal charges relating to three child complainants in trials held between 2009 and 2010. The HSE’s assessment concerned a complaint made by one child. The judgment records that the HSE said it regarded the allegations as credible but untested, and did not treat them as proof.
The board argued that it had a clear interest because of its duty to safeguard pupils and because it relied on the HSE’s December 2012 letter when deciding to reinstate N.L. The judgment recounts that the board had earlier reserved the right to carry out its own disciplinary inquiry. It also records that the board later referred parents’ concerns about reported comments by an HSE social worker to the HSE, and considered a risk assessment of N.L. Those reported comments were disputed and were not findings by the court.
The judge said the board had never said it was bound by the HSE’s findings or had delegated its disciplinary role to the HSE. Although the assessment could have considerable potential significance for the board and others, that did not make them directly affected parties for the purpose of joining the judicial review. The court also treated as moot a requested remedy concerning material on N.L.’s school personnel file, after his counsel undertook that it would not be pursued at trial.
The application to join was refused. The underlying judicial review remains a separate matter, and the court made no ruling in this judgment on whether the HSE’s assessment was lawful or whether N.L. was entitled to the substantive relief he sought.