‘Good fortune’ allows teacher sacked over alleged misconduct seek teaching jobs

A teacher dismissed by his school can continue to seek teaching jobs because a High Court bid to suspend his registration cannot proceed.

The teacher was sacked following allegations by two overseas students, including of making sexual advances to one while drinking.

He was the subject of the first ever High Court application by the Teaching Council of Ireland to suspend a teacher’s registration pending a council inquiry into the allegations.

The suspension application, initiated earlier this year, had to be withdrawn last month because both students, having completed their Leaving Certificates, refused to return from their native countries to give evidence to the inquiry.

In those circumstances, the teacher withdrew his previous undertaking not to seek to teach here or in any other European Union member state and also sought his legal costs against the council.

Costs refused

In an important judgment on Friday concerning liability of regulatory bodies for legal costs, the president of the High Court, Mr Justice Peter Kelly, refused to grant the teacher his costs.

The normal rule in legal cases, that costs follow the event – that is, go to the winning side, was not applicable to such applications, he found.

The council’s exercise of the suspension function places it in a “wholly different” position to that of a party to ordinary civil litigation.

A costs order would be considered only if the suspension application was improperly brought or there was gross negligence in its preparation, neither of which applied here.

Even if the ordinary costs rule did apply, the judge said he would not award costs to the teacher because the suspension was properly sought and the only reason it did not continue was because both students declined to return to give evidence. The teacher’s “good fortune” in not having to face an inquiry was not a basis for granting him costs.

The council made the suspension of registration application under Section 47 of the Teaching Council Acts 2001-2015 which requires such applications must be heard in private.

Mr Justice Kelly’s judgment on costs was delivered in public, having excluded all details that might identify those involved.

Public interest

Section 47 provides the council can apply for suspension of a teacher’s registration if satisfied that is in the public interest.

The council earlier this year received a complaint from the headmaster of the school where the teacher had been employed which related to allegations by two students.

Student A alleged he had been drinking one evening with the teacher who had made a sexual advance towards him; that he and Student B were brought by the teacher to his private home for a weekend on three occasions; and that he drank alcohol on a regular basis and also smoked cannabis with the teacher.

Student A declined to make a complaint against the teacher when asked to do so by gardaí.

Student B separately alleged that he, at least three times weekly, drank substantial quantities of alcohol and smoked cannabis in the teacher’s house.

The judge said the students’ complaints were much more detailed but it was unnecessary to further detail them for this judgment.

He said the school acted once the allegations were made, the teacher was suspended on full pay and a disciplinary hearing upheld four of seven allegations. Those were found to constitute “gross misconduct” by the teacher and he was dismissed immediately.

The school headmaster then made a formal complaint to the council which, within 10 days, informed the teacher there would be consideration of a section 47 application.

When that application was heard in the High Court last May, the council accepted his undertaking, pending the inquiry, not to teach in any school here or in any other EU member state and permitting the council to notify authorities of the terms of the undertaking, which had the same legal effect as a court order.

Vetting bureau

The council also undertook to notify the teacher if it decided, during its investigation, to inform the National Vetting Bureau of the matter. The order also permitted the council to respond frankly and honestly to any inquiry about the teacher’s registration status and to provide details of his undertaking.

After it became clear by last month neither student would give evidence at the inquiry, it was accepted the most serious elements of the complaints against the teacher could not be pursued, the judge noted.

The matter then returned to court when the teacher said he would not continue his undertaking not to teach and the council said it could not pursue the suspension. The council did not seek costs against him but he sought costs against it.