Arrow left dark
Newsletter icon SUBSCRIBE

High Court: Appeals committee erred in taking personal circumstances into account

Clock icon Reading time: 5 minutes

The Board of Management of a secondary school in Athenry have been granted an order of certiorari, quashing the decision of an appeals committee which had directed the school to admit a pupil contrary to its enrolment policies.

Image

About this case:

Ms Justice Úna Ní Raifeartaigh found that the committee had erred in considering personal circumstances in the case, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration by a committee

Background

An appeal committee appointed by the Department of Education pursuant to s. 29 of the Education Act 1998 allowed an appeal on behalf of a child (C.I.) from a decision of the Board of Management of Presentation College Athenry which had refused to enrol him in the school.

In the High Court, the school sought certiorari of the determination of the committee as well as of the direction of the Minister directing the school to arrange for the child’s enrolment in the school in September 2017, and an order remitting the matter back to a newly constituted committee.

The Nub of the Case

Justice Ní Raifeartaigh explained that this case raised a discrete and important legal issue that arose “from a most unfortunate set of personal circumstances”.

The child was moved, from a primary school in which he had spent many years and was well settled, into Craughwell National School where he had to repeat fifth class for reasons unrelated to academic ability, and settle in all over again because his parents believed that this would secure him a passage into Presentation College Athenry.

The parents believed because of their interactions with the then school principal that this was a “feeder” school for the College, and in their appeal to the committee they argued that they had a legitimate expectation because of what the principal had told them.

The secondary school applied the procedures prescribed by its enrolment policy for a child in his category, which was a procedure of random lottery, and C.I. did not secure a place and was refused enrolment in the school.

The effect of the committee’s decision, if valid, was that the school would be required to admit him despite his not having been selected in accordance with the procedure set out by the school’s enrolment policy.

Justice Ní Raifeartaigh stated that one could “readily understand, at the human sympathy level, why the committee took the decision it did”; nevertheless, the questions arising for the High Court were legal in nature:

  • Was the committee entitled to consider the personal circumstances of the child and in particular the fact that reliance had been placed upon things said by the former principal?

  • Or was it confined, in conducting its appeal, to the parameters of the school’s own enrolment policy?

  • What is the proper scope of a s. 29 appeal and is a committee bound by the parameters of the school’s enrolment policy in the same way as the school itself?

    • As such, the Court had to “put to one side considerations of personal sympathy”.

    Previous decisions

    Justice Ní Raifeartaigh stated that the starting point on the scope of an appeal to a committee pursuant to s. 29 of the Education Act 1998 was the Board of Management of St. Molaga’s National School v. Department of Education 1 I.R. 362.

    Considering the St. Molaga case at length, the issue of whether a committee could be entirely “at large” and not constrained by the parameters of an enrolment policy did not arise in St. Molaga.

    Turning to consider further High Court authorities, Justice Ní Raifeartaigh summarised the key statements in relation to the relationship between the committee’s role and the enrolment policy of a school as:

    1. The committee should not impugn the enrolment policy; it should apply it (as per County Westmeath V.E.C. v. Department of Education 1 I.R. 192);

    2. The committee cannot strike down or disregard a provision in the enrolment policy and substitute what it considers appropriate (as per Lucan Educate Together National School v. Department of Education IEHC 86);

    3. The committee is required to take the decision on the basis of the same matters as the school and is not entitled to take into account extraneous matters such as alternative school placements (as per City of Waterford V.E.C. v. Department of Education IEHC 278); and,

    4. The committee has no jurisdiction to review the entrance policy of a school and its only task is to decide whether the entrance policy was correctly followed. It should interpret and apply the policy but it is not appropriate to look behind the policies or indirectly to criticise them. It cannot pay attention to elements unrelated to the correct implementation of the entrance policies. (as per Bord Bainistíochta Scoil Lorcáin v. Rionne Oideachais ).

      5. High Court Discussion

      In the present case, there was no question of the committee seeking to “impugn” or criticise the enrolment policy itself in any direct sense.

      The committee considered, in deciding that the child should be given a place in the school, the interactions between the former school principal and the parents which had led to placing him in a new primary school where the child had to repeat fifth class.

      In doing so, the committee crossed the line into territory which was described as prohibited by the High Court authorities.

      The essential point was that it considered certain circumstances which the enrolment policy would not have permitted to be considered.

      Accordingly, Justice Ní Raifeartaigh concluded that the committee erred in considering the personal circumstances of the child.

      The committee was not entitled to depart from or disregard the enrolment policy; and consequently, as a matter of law, the previous High Court authorities required that the committee conduct its full appeal within the parameters of the school’s enrolment policy.

      • by Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News

        • Share icon
        Share this article: