The High Court has refused a judicial review challenge to Veronica Trehy’s appointment as principal of Castleblayney Infant National School, finding that a technical breach in the appointment process did not invalidate the decision.
Mary Callan Brady, the school’s deputy principal and an unsuccessful candidate, asked the court to quash the Board of Management’s approval of Ms Trehy’s appointment and the patron’s consent. She argued that the selection process was flawed, including in how the interview panel considered candidates’ experience and awarded marks for Irish proficiency. She also alleged objective bias because the board chair’s children had been taught by Ms Trehy.
Mr Justice McDermott accepted evidence from the chair and two independent assessors that candidates’ application forms and presentations were considered alongside their interviews. He found that the Irish marks were awarded uniformly, that the approach caused no prejudice and did not affect the candidates’ ranking. He was also satisfied that the interview questions and marking system reflected the school’s needs and the criteria set for the competition.
The judge found that the board should have received the final marks and ranking of the candidates under the applicable appointment rules. Their omission was a technical breach. However, the court held that the ranking would not have given the board a valid reason to reject the highest-ranked candidate, and that the breach was not substantial enough to overturn the appointment.
The judgment records that the selection panel ranked Ms Trehy first, with 392 marks. Ms Brady scored 365, while another candidate scored 373. The board approved Ms Trehy’s appointment, and the patron consented. The judge found that there was no good and sufficient reason for the board to reject the panel’s highest-ranked nominee.
On the bias claim, the judge granted leave to add the ground but rejected it after considering the evidence. He accepted Ms Trehy’s account that she had taught the chair’s children for about seven months and had only two brief interactions with him. He found no material relationship or reasonable basis for apprehending bias.
The court refused the application. The ruling concerned the lawfulness of the appointment process; the judge said judicial review was not an appeal on the merits of the candidates’ suitability.