The High Court has told a school principal he had "no legal authority" to suspend indefinitely a boy who had admitted smoking cannabis during a school trip to the Aran Islands.
Mr Justice ╙ Caoimh yesterday granted orders directing Mr Gear≤id ╙ Ciarβin, principal of Colβiste Rβith∅n, Bray, Co Wicklow, to comply with a direction of Co Wicklow Vocational Education Committee to re-admit David McKenna (16) to the school. He also granted an order permitting David to attend the school as a pupil.
The judge said it was "abundantly clear" from the Vocation Educational Act 1930 that the principal in any VEC college had a limited power to suspend, essentially for three days, and only for a longer period "in exceptional circumstances".
It was clear in this case the principal had purported to maintain the boy on suspension for an indefinite period, notwithstanding several meetings of the school board of management and subsequent written directions sent to Mr ╙ Ciarβin from the VEC, the judge said.
It was clear, in light of Section 21.5 of the VEA Act (which states the acts of every subcommittee of a VEC shall be subject to confirmation by such committee), that the principal could not maintain an entitlement to keep the boy suspended.
The action of Mr ╙ Ciarβin in keeping the boy out of school contravened Section 21.5, he found. An affidavit from the VEC demonstrated "a total disregard" by Mr ╙ Ciarβin for the authority of the VEC.
The judge added he was however satisfied the school board of management had sought to address the situation by noting Mr ╙ Ciarβin's concerns and causing these to be addressed by the VEC.
The judge awarded costs to the boy of his legal action against both Mr ╙ Ciarβin and the VEC but directed that Mr ╙ Ciarβin should pay the VEC's costs. The VEC had conceded in the action that the boy was entitled to the orders he sought.
David, of Dargle Road, Bray, Co Wicklow, and four others boys, were suspended from the school on October 23rd last year after they were found to have smoked cannabis during a school trip to the Aran Islands.
On November 6th, 2000, the school board of management recommended all five boys be expelled but that decision was reversed on November 15th when the board decided all five might be readmitted. That latter decision was upheld by the VEC.
Prior to the November 15th meeting, Mr ╙ Ciarβin had invited three of the boys to reattend school but not David. The fifth boy was withdrawn by his parents from the school. After the November 15th meeting, David's parents were told by the chairman of the board of management that the board was lifting the suspension of David and he was welcome back in the school.
The chairman also indicated that Mr ╙ Ciarβin had a difficulty with that decision, was seeking clarification from the VEC and that David might remain absent from the school for a short period pending that clarification.
When David went to school on December 1st last year, he was informed in a letter from Mr ╙ Ciarβin that he could not attend. He took legal proceedings, which led to a High Court order last January, directing Mr ╙ Ciarβin to permit the boy to resume attending school pending the outcome of the full legal action.
In his reserved judgment yesterday, Mr Justice ╙ Caoimh said the boy had admitted his involvement in the cannabis smoking incident and it appeared he had provided cannabis to some of his colleagues in the school to smoke.
Although the VEC had upheld the decision to lift David's suspension, Mr ╙ Ciarβin had failed to comply with this decision, the judge said.
Mr ╙ Ciarβin had failed to exhibit a letter of November 27th, 2000 to him from the VEC which stated that the VEC had been legally advised that Mr ╙ Ciarβin had done everything he could be expected to do up to the point where he had advised the board about the position as he saw it and that "no further legal liability could be attached to you".
The effect of Section 21.5 of the VEC was that any recommendation by a school board for dismissal or a prolonged period of suspension was subject to a decision of the VEC, the judge decided. In this case, there had never been any confirmation of any proposed expulsion of the boy and the decision was for his reinstatement.
The judge found the matter was subject to judicial review and also decided Mr ╙ Ciarβin was not entitled to mount a collateral attack on the decisions of the school board and the VEC.
