A FIVE-JUDGE Supreme Court has unanimously ruled that a Department of Education appeals committee has the power to overturn a school board of management’s refusal to enrol two pupils.
The board of management of St Molaga’s national school, Balbriggan, Dublin, refused in February 2008 to enrol the two girls, who had just moved to the area.
That decision was made in circumstances where the board had decided in March 2007 the school was full to capacity. By February 2008 it had refused to enrol 41 other children due to lack of proper permanent accommodation. At that time it had 25 pupils more than provided for in the department’s guidelines.
The parents of the two girls, who have since gone to another school, appealed the refusal. An appeals committee of the department allowed this, and the department secretary general directed the school to enrol the girls.
The board appealed that direction to the High Court, and in February 2009 won a High Court order overturning the direction as “irrational” and unlawful.
Ms Justice Mary Irvine ruled under Section 29 of the Education Act 1998 that the appeals committee was entitled only to review the board’s decision on grounds of its reasonableness/lawfulness, and was not entitled to reverse management decisions.
She found the appeals committee exceeded its powers in purporting to carry out a full appeal into an effective decision as to the school’s capacity, based on management considerations.
The department appealed that judgment to the Supreme Court, which yesterday ruled on a preliminary issue in that appeal – the interpretation of Section 29, which sets out the procedure for appeals against decisions of a school board to expel or suspend students, or refuse to enrol them.
Giving the unanimous judgment, Ms Justice Susan Denham rejected the High Court finding that Section 29 is limited and does not allow for a full rehearing of the matter under appeal. Section 29 provides that, where a board refuses to enrol a pupil, a parent – following any appeal procedures provided by the school or its patron – may “appeal” to a committee set up by the department secretary general, she said.
It was clear the appeals committee may make recommendations to the secretary general, who may direct the board to act in accordance with that recommendation, the judge said. The board was required to act in line with the secretary general’s direction.
Thus, the jurisdiction of the appeals committee was not limited to a review, for example, of the lawfulness or reasonableness of the board decision, the judge found. The appeals committee had jurisdiction to conduct a full hearing of an appeal under Section 29.
The High Court had heard the board of St Molaga’s was willing to expand to a 24-classroom school but only on the basis of permanent accommodation being provided, which had not been forthcoming. The school had expanded rapidly up to 2007 and had refused to install another prefab on its grounds because the school electrical system would need a major upgrade to accommodate that.
The board decided in March 2007 to only take in pupils from its adjacent junior feeder school, St Peter and Paul’s, for four years. After that it hoped it might have obtained new accommodation from the department. Its policy had been in force for 11 months when the two girls sought places.
