The Circuit Court allowed an appeal by Christian Bros High School Clonmel and set aside an Equality Officer’s order in a case brought by Mary Stokes on behalf of her son, John. Judge Thomas Teehan delivered the judgment on 25 July 2011.
The case concerned the school’s “parental rule”, which gave priority for admission to boys whose fathers had attended the school. For the 2010/11 academic year, the school had 140 places and 174 applicants. After places were allocated to applicants under other priority categories, 83 places had been filled. The remaining places were allocated by lottery. John, a member of the Travelling Community, was unsuccessful.
The judgment says John had a 55% chance of selection under the policy. Without the parental rule, his chance would have been 70%. His mother appealed the refusal through the school and under section 29 of the Education Act 1998. The Department of Education and Skills’ Appeals Committee dismissed that appeal, finding the Board had been fair and reasonable in applying its admissions policy. Judge Teehan said that decision could not be revisited in these proceedings; the court’s case concerned alleged breaches of equality legislation.
The judge found the rule was discriminatory against Travellers because relatively few people in the community had attended secondary school, making it less likely that applicants’ fathers had attended the school. He also found other groups, including the Nigerian and Polish communities, could be disadvantaged by the rule.
The court nevertheless accepted the school’s explanation that the rule served a legitimate aim: supporting the school’s family ethos and characteristic spirit. It found the admissions policy, reviewed annually, struck an appropriate balance among relevant considerations. On necessity, the judge cited evidence about links between the school and the Clonmel community, including past pupils’ mentoring, bursaries and financial assistance. He found, with hesitation, that the parental rule was necessary to create a proportionate and balanced admissions policy.
Because the court found the rule justified, it did not consider whether the difference between John’s 55% and 70% chances was too small to matter. The judgment did not order John’s admission; it allowed the school’s appeal and set aside the Equality Officer’s order.