Ruling against school on expelled boy

A STUDENT has won his High Court challenge to his expulsion from a second-level school over an incident during a school charity football match. After the boy tugged at the football shorts of a young male teacher, the shorts fell to expose the teacher’s buttocks.

Timothy O’Donovan, a then 16- year-old fifth year student at De La Salle, Wicklow, now a third-level student, told his mother he “had a rush of blood to the head” after winning the game for the students side by saving a penalty shot at him by the teacher during a penalty shoot-out in the closing stages of the match in November 2006.

He raced up behind the teacher and tugged at his shorts from behind, thinking they were held by string in the normal way. They were not and fell about seven inches displaying the teacher’s buttocks. The boy claimed he was immediately remorseful but the school authorities argued he was not quite so contrite and appeared to revel for a time in the commotion caused by his actions.

The teacher later made a formal complaint and Timothy was suspended in late November 2006. He was expelled in January 2007 after the school board concluded on December 19th, 2006, the incident was very serious and caused considerable distress to the teacher, who was offered counselling.

An appeal to the Department of Education’s appeals committee was unsuccessful. Timothy went to another school and is now at third level. In his High Court proceedings, he alleged the school’s response to his “unpremeditated and stupid gesture” was “grossly unfair”.

In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice John Hedigan ruled that the decisions of the school authorities were a plain and unambiguous violation of requirements under the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 to engage with the relevant educational welfare officer who had a “vital role” in ensuring the continued education of students and in consulting with the parties.

The Act required the school principal to “forthwith” report any suspension of over six days to the education and welfare officer but the officer was not contacted until December 19th, 2006, after the expulsion decision was made.

The judge said the officer’s role was to ensure no untoward break in the continuous education of a child where disciplinary procedures, such as expulsion or a lengthy suspension, were contemplated.

This expulsion was obtained in clear violation of statutory procedure from which it was clear the boy’s continuing education was hampered. Timothy spent several weeks out of school suspended and secured an alternative school.

He also had to take on a new subject in the middle of his Leaving Cert studies and the school’s default of procedure was not inconsequential. The change of school alone was likely to have a serious effect on his performance at this crucial time, the judge said.

Mr Justice Hedigan ruled that the expulsion process was tainted by that error on the part of the school. He granted a declaration that the decisions to expel the boy breached his statutory rights and he adjourned the matter to allow the sides to consider his judgment.