The principal of a Kilkenny vocational school yesterday secured a High Court order restraining her suspension, pending the outcome of any inquiry which may be conducted by the Department of Education into allegations against her.
While restraining the suspension of Catherine McSorley, however, Mr Justice Paul Gilligan said any inquiry by County Kilkenny Vocational Educational Committee (VEC) into allegations against her may still proceed and should do so "with all due haste".
He directed the VEC to hand over to Ms McSorley any documents in the possession of a sub-committee of the VEC which, earlier this year, inquired into allegations against Ms McSorley. The judge also made an order against the VEC preventing publication of documents before the sub-committee which are relevant to the case.
The proceedings by Ms McSorley, Annamult, Bennettsbridge, arise following a number of reports by consultants into matters at Kilkenny Vocational School, of which Ms McSorley has been principal since September 1999. She claims there has been an ongoing campaign by certain staff members to undermine her authority as principal.
Ms McSorley has denied the allegations against her, which include claims that a number of students were being paid to attend the school and that she displayed a lack of professionalism and inter-personal skills in carrying out her duties.
In May 2003, consultant John Dowling completed a report on the Kilkenny school. A second report was later compiled by the CEO of County Waterford VEC, Paddy Lavelle. A third report - the Whole School Evaluation Report - was compiled by Ms Mary Kilbride of the Department of Education and Science.
A sub-committee of the VEC compiled its own report which draws on and corroborates material in the earlier reports. The VEC is seeking to refer this to the main VEC committee for consideration and the latter may then apply for an inquiry by the Department of Education.
Yesterday, Mr Ercus Stewart SC, for Ms McSorley, argued that fair procedures had not been adhered to by the sub-committee in compiling its report.
His client was willing to co-operate with the sub-committee and main committee but required precise details of the allegations against her. These allegations had only been set out in vague form and the VEC itself admitted that.