Challenge to expulsions from school over cannabis adjourned

A high Court judge yesterday adjourned a challenge by two Leaving Certificate students to their expulsion from their private Dublin school - for smoking cannabis at a private party outside school hours - so both sides may discuss the situation.

In his judgment on the boys' challenge, Mr Justice Kearns noted it was argued that 37 per cent of Irish 16-year-olds have smoked cannabis and so its use should not be seen as an abnormal or very serious matter but as part of widespread youth culture.

Mr Justice Kearns said the school's "zero tolerance" approach to drug use was reasonable but the boys and their parents were entitled to make submissions before the ultimate penalty of expulsion was imposed. The headmaster also had wrongly taken the view he had no option but to expel the boys automatically before such submissions were heard.

In light of an indication from the school that the court might wish to adopt something other than a "black and white" approach' to the case, the judge said he would make no order and adjourned the case so both sides could consider whether the present suspension or exclusion of the boys, had it occurred, was justified. The boys and their parents should have an opportunity of addressing the board of governors before the possibility of any more lengthy suspension or expulsion. If both sides gave him an indication of that next week, he would further adjourn the matter to enable the process outlined to take place. It was desirable that any meetings should take place without lawyers, he said. The school was still free to impose a long suspension or expulsion on the boys if, after hearing submissions from the boys and their parents, the board of governors felt that was appropriate.

Given that Department of Education guidelines on discipline did not apply to unrecognised private schools, the judge outlined a number of pointers to assist such schools.

He said that if a long-term suspension or expulsion was to take place, rules of natural justice required that students or parents should be permitted make representations on penalties; lawyers should ideally not be involved in such hearings; exceptional circumstances, such as where there was danger to life or property, could justify immediate or longterm suspension without notice or procedures; and schools should have clear rules of conduct, ensure parents and pupils were aware of these and get parents to read and sign them, especially where they related to behaviour off school premises.

The boys were expelled on October 2nd, the day after a teacher discovered they were smoking cannabis at a private party. The boys admitted smoking cannabis and expressed remorse in letters to the school. Their parents also made representations but the board of governors upheld the headmaster's decision. They were to sit the Leaving Certificate next summer.

In his judgment, Mr Justice Kearns noted that an ESRI survey in 1986 stated that cannabis smoking has been associated with health consequences similar to those observed in cigarette smoking and with short-term impairment of learning and memory.

The judge said he was concerned only with whether there was a reasonable basis for the school to regard cannabis use as constituting a serious offence, as it was also a criminal offence. In his view, there could be no doubt the school was entitled to take an extremely severe line on drug use, even of soft drugs, because any slippage of discipline could have the most deleterious implications for student users, other students and the school generally. A "zero tolerance" policy was not unreasonable.

Once a court has decided that a school has in general terms been fair, it should not lightly interfere with the autonomy of a school. The court could not state whether a punishment should be suspension or expulsion in an individual case unless there appeared to be a want of any reasonable basis for the decision. However, it was a cause for concern that the expulsions were put in place before either the students or their parents had an opportunity to make representations. This was an essential aspect of fair procedures.

"Any form of automatic expulsion seems to me to breach an essential requirement of natural justice: that a person be allowed address the question of penalty before that penalty was imposed," the judge said. The school rule that pupils found using drugs inside or outside school would be expelled should be seen as an option rather than mandating the school.