The High Court has refused a priest’s application to challenge his removal as chaplain of Gorey Community School and conditions attached to his proposed return as a religious education teacher.
In a judgment delivered on 23 January 2015, Ms Justice Baker held that the decision to remove the applicant as chaplain was made by implication in a December 2012 letter. The applicant had sought judicial review of the Board of Management’s October 2013 decision, but was out of time to challenge the earlier removal. The court also held that a decision about appointment or dismissal as chaplain was not amenable to judicial review because that role lacked the relevant public law element.
The applicant, a priest, had been nominated chaplain about 21 years earlier. In 2011, a former pupil alleged through her parents that she had had a sexual relationship with him in 2006 and 2007. He denied the allegations. The Board’s disciplinary hearing found, on balance, that there had been no sexual impropriety, but said certain aspects of his conduct were inappropriate. The former pupil did not attend the hearing.
A psychologist later assessed the applicant as posing a “low risk” and recommended limits on counselling pupils, leading group activities and taking part in trips with students. In October 2013, after the applicant obtained conditional registration as a teacher, the Board said he could return as a religious education teacher, subject to conditions including restrictions on contact with students outside school and compliance with child protection policies.
Justice Baker found that the conditions were disciplinary sanctions within procedures applicable to teachers, making that decision reviewable. She rejected the applicant’s arguments that he had not been given a fair opportunity to answer the conduct concerns, or that the conditions were arbitrary, disproportionate or irrational. She said the restrictions were connected to the conduct that had led to the Board’s findings and that the applicant’s conditional teacher registration contained similar stipulations.
The court refused all relief sought. It did not set aside the conditions or order the Board to restore the applicant as chaplain.