High Court confirms Teaching Council's disciplinary sanction against a teacher for professional misconduct.

[APPROVED]

[REDACTED]

THE HIGH COURT

[2026] IEHC 345

Record No. 2026 No. 193 MCA

IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 44(5) OF TEACHING COUNCIL ACT, 2001 (AS

AMENDED) AND IN THE MATTER OF A REGISTERED TEACHER AND ON THE

APPLICATION OF THE TEACHING COUNCIL

BETWEEN

TEACHING COUNCIL

APPLICANT

AND

MN

RESPONDENT

Ex tempore JUDGMENT of Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered on the 18th day of May, 2026

Introduction

1. This is my judgment on an application brought by the Teaching Council (the “Applicant” or the “Council”) for orders under s. 44(5) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 (as amended) (the “2001 Act”) to confirm the decision of a Panel of the Council’s Disciplinary Committee (the “Panel”) that the Respondent teacher (the “Respondent”) be suspended from the register of teachers for a period of two years, and that, following the period of suspension (if confirmed), his registration would be subject to certain conditions for a period of ten years. Those conditions are that for a period of 10 years, the Respondent must inform any prospective employer of the outcome of these proceedings, and provide such prospective employer with a copy of the Panel’s Report and Decision of the Council on Sanction (with the names of witnesses and certain locations redacted) and that, for a period of 10 years, the registration of the Respondent would record the fact that conditions as to his fitness to teach have been imposed. In addition, an order is sought that the Teaching Council be at liberty to communicate the terms of the orders made to the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, The Teaching Regulation Agency (England), The Education Workforce Council (Wales) and The General Teaching Council for Scotland.

Gilchrist Application

2. I should say at the outset that an application was made last Thursday, 14 May 2026, on behalf of the Respondent seeking certain anonymisation orders in respect of the Respondent and various other people referred to in the papers. That application was heard and determined by me on that date, and I decided that this is an appropriate case in which to make the orders sought in exercise of the common law jurisdiction outlined by the Supreme Court in Gilchrist v Sunday Newspapers [2017] 2 IR 284. I granted that application in light of very convincing medical evidence put before the Court setting out that in the event that the Respondent were to be identified in these proceedings, it would have very serious and potentially fatal consequences for the Respondent. In those circumstances, I directed that the identity of the Respondent would be anonymised to initials that are not those of his own name, that various other persons including the complainant, the Respondent’s former student and witnesses would be anonymised and that certain locations would be redacted, including the relevant school at which the Respondent taught.

Factual Background

3. The application is grounded on an affidavit sworn by Declan O’Leary, Head of the Disciplinary Committee Unit of the Council. In his affidavit, Mr O’Leary explains the role of the Teaching Council. It is a statutory body established under s. 5 of the 2001 Act. Pursuant to Part 3 of the 2001 Act, the Council established and maintains a Register of Teachers. Under Part 5 of the 2001 Act, the Council receives and considers complaints made against registered teachers and, where necessary, hold inquiries in relation to the fitness to teach of teachers. The Respondent is a registered teacher whose name appears on the Register.

4. A complaint was made against the Respondent to the Council’s Investigating Committee on

29 November 2021. That complaint was made under s. 42 of the 2001 Act. The complainant was the mother of a former student of the Respondent. The complaint concerned an allegation of professional misconduct and conduct which amounted to a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers (Updated 2nd Edition, July 2016) established by the Council under s. 7(2)(b) of the 2001 Act (the “Code”). Following a number of meetings to consider the complaint by the Investigating Committee on 4 February 2022 and 21 March 2022, the Investigating Committee met on 6 September 2022 and formed the opinion, pursuant to s. 42(9)(a) of the 2001 Act, that there was a prima facie case to warrant further action being taken in relation to the complaint. The complaint was referred by the Investigating Committee to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council (the “Committee”) on grounds of professional misconduct as referred to in s. 42(1)(b) of the 2001 Act and on grounds that the Respondent had engaged in conduct that was contrary to the Code.

Notice of Inquiry

5. A Notice of Inquiry (the “Notice”) dated 9 September 2024 was prepared on behalf of the Director of the Teaching Council (the “Director”). The role of the Director in the context of an inquiry is to present the evidence in relation to the complaint at the inquiry. The Notice contained the allegations against the Respondent. The Notice was sent to the Respondent’s representatives, the Teacher’s Union of Ireland (the “TUI”) on 10 September 2024.

6. The Notice contained a single allegation against the Respondent, namely, that in or around 2020, the Respondent, being a registered teacher, engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or inappropriate communication with a student while he was a teacher at a named school. It was alleged that that amounted to professional misconduct and a breach of paras. 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6 and 3.7 of the Code.

The Inquiry

7. A preliminary hearing was held by the Panel on 19 December 2024. The Respondent was present and was legally represented at that hearing. An application was made on the Respondent’s behalf that the Inquiry would take place in private, as is provided for in s. 43(9) of the 2001 Act. Certain evidence was provided in support of that application. A number of other persons made written applications in that respect to the Panel, including the complainant and the (by that stage, former) student of the Respondent. Certain other witnesses also made written applications to the Panel to be anonymised during the Inquiry. Ultimately, the Panel decided that the Inquiry should proceed in private. It did so primarily on the basis of the applications made by the complainant and the Respondent’s former student and it also considered a medical report provided by the Respondent in support of his application for the Inquiry to proceed in private.

8. The Inquiry proceeded over the course of 5 days (4 and 5 September 2025, 17 October 2025,

19 December 2025 and 6 February 2026). The Respondent was legally represented at the Inquiry and attended on each day. The Panel was assisted by a legal assessor during the Inquiry, Paul McGarry SC. The Panel heard evidence from a number of witnesses and legal submissions from counsel for the Council and the Respondent. It also received the advices of the legal assessor.

The Report

9. Following the Inquiry, pursuant to s. 43(17)(b) of the 2001 Act, the Panel prepared a report on 11 February 2026 (the “Report”). In the Report, the Panel found that the allegation against the Respondent that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or inappropriate communication with a student in or around 2020 was proven as to fact. The Panel set out in some detail its reasons for coming to that conclusion. In doing so, it assessed the evidence that was given by witnesses and it ultimately reached the view that, while much of the evidence was circumstantial, “the number and variety of those issues is corroborative of…an inappropriate relationship with the registered teacher”. The evidence concluded to the satisfaction of the Panel that, on the requisite standard, namely, beyond reasonable doubt, that, in or around 2020, the Respondent had engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or inappropriate communication with the particular student while she was a student of the Respondent. The Panel was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the allegation of professional misconduct was made out and that the Respondent’s conduct had breached paras. 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6 and 3.7 of the Code.

Decision as to Sanction

10. Following its Report, the Panel met again on 11 March 2026 to determine the appropriate sanction to be imposed on the Respondent (the “Sanction Hearing”). The Panel heard submissions on behalf of the Director and on behalf of the Respondent, as well as additional evidence called on behalf of the Respondent and had the benefit of further advices from the legal assessor. The Panel prepared a written decision as to its sanction on 11 March 2026, having considered to the submissions and the additional evidence that it had heard at the Sanction Hearing (the “Sanction Decision”). Having regard to those submissions and evidence, the Panel determined that the Respondent should be suspended from the register pursuant to s. 44(1)(b) of the 2001 Act for a period of 2 years. The Panel also decided that, thereafter, the Respondent’s registration would be subject to certain conditions in accordance with s. 44(1)(c)(iv) of the 2001 Act, namely, that for a period of 10 years, the Respondent must inform any prospective employer of the outcome of these proceedings, and provide such prospective employer with a copy of the Report and the Panel’s Sanction Decision (with the names of witnesses and certain locations redacted) and that, for a period of 10 years, the registration of the Respondent would record the fact that conditions as to his fitness to teach have been imposed.

11. The Panel then set out in detail the reasons why it considered that sanction to be the most appropriate one in the circumstances. The Panel stated in the Sanction Decision that the nature of the misconduct that the Respondent had engaged in was the most relevant factor to be taken into account and the Panel noted that the fact that the Respondent was engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or inappropriate communication with a student is at the most extreme end of the spectrum of misconduct. The Respondent was in a position of trust vis-àvis the student in this case. The Respondent taught a subject which invariably involves engagement with students in an activity which they enjoy, and which involves organisation of extra-curricular events. The Panel also noted that the student in this case was vulnerable, not merely because of her age but because she was suffering from mental health issues at the relevant time. The Panel noted that the most important attribute for a teacher is that they can be trusted not to cause harm to students in their care or abuse their position of power and trust.

12. The Panel also considered the Teaching Council Guidance on Sanctions (September 2021) (the “Guidance”) and, in particular, section 7 of that Guidance. The Panel looked at the question of proportionality, and noted that in applying that principle, it is required to balance the maintenance of the standards of professional conduct of teachers and the interests of the public against those of the registered teacher. The Panel determined that suspension of the Respondent from the register for 2 years, together with the imposition of conditions, best struck that balance. The Panel noted that a combination of sanctions is provided for in s. 44(1) of the 2001 Act and is referred to in section 11 of the Guidance.

13. The Panel had regard to mitigating factors, in accordance with the Guidance. The Panel noted that the Respondent had an unblemished career as a teacher. It also noted the character evidence called on his behalf which noted professionalism, diligence, commitment and popularity with both students and colleagues. The Panel acknowledged that many of the witnesses testified as to the Respondent’s good character and abilities as a teacher. The Panel had regard to the age of the Respondent, who is 57 years old, his need to earn a livelihood to support his family, and the fact that removal from the register would render that very difficult.

14. The Panel accepted that this is a very unusual case. It noted that the facts were connected, to an extent, with the outcome of the Covid pandemic. The Panel noted that, at the time of its

decision as to sanction, the Respondent was married to the former student in question and that they had been together for 5 years by that stage. The relationship has, it seems, since come to an end and that fact was communicated to the Court on an affidavit sworn by the Respondent dated 12 May 2026 for the purposes of his application for anonymisation in these proceedings.

15. The Panel then considered the question of insight, and noted that the Respondent had shown “some insight”. Whilst he had defended himself against the misconduct allegations and said that he was not in a relationship and had not communicated inappropriately with the former student at the relevant time in or around 2020, he contended that their relationship had not commenced until the former student ceased to be a student of the Respondent, the Panel did not accept that evidence. Once the Panel had reached its finding in that respect, and for the purpose of the hearing on sanction, it was accepted by the Respondent that he had crossed a boundary. He accepted also that his role was not to “act as a sounding board for a student”. He accepted that there were certain things that he should not have done, which included adding “xx” at the end of his name when signing off a card to the student. He accepted that he should not have sent flowers to the student, and that he should not have given lifts in his car to the relevant student and other students if they did not have parental permission. The Panel also noted that the Respondent acknowledged that his relationship with the student was inappropriate and that he had failed to comply with the onus that was on him to respect professional boundaries and not to allow them to become blurred.

16. The Panel then addressed aggravating factors, in accordance with the Guidance. The Panel considered that the matters at issue in this case are undoubtedly serious and that the Respondent had abused his position of trust. The Panel noted that the facts in this case were indicative of a pattern of behaviour as opposed to an isolated event, and that the behaviour was deliberate and intentional.

17. The Panel considered all of the sanctions available to be imposed under s. 44 of the 2001 Act, beginning with the most lenient. The Panel noted that, having regard to the overriding obligation to protect the public from harm into the future, it was necessary to mark its dissatisfaction with the Respondent’s conduct. The Panel observed that some of the factors referred to in its Report “point to the imposition of the most draconian sanction possible”, being cancellation of registration. The Panel decided, on balance, that it was appropriate to stop short of such a sanction in light of the relevant mitigating factors presented by the Respondent’s counsel, including the need to consider leniency, the fact that the purpose of sanctioning a registered teacher is not to punish the individual, but to ensure public protection, and in light of the Respondent’s livelihood, age and circumstances. In particular, the Panel found that, having regard to the need to protect the public, there was a potential risk of harm into the future. In addition, it noted that it was necessary to deter other in the profession from engaging in similar conduct and to send an appropriate message to the public that teaching is a well-regulated profession.

18. For all of those reasons, the Panel determined that the Respondent should be suspended pursuant to s. 44(1)(b) of the 2001 Act for a period of 2 years. A suspension period of 2 years is the maximum period of suspension provided for under s. 44(1)(b) of the 2001 Act, with the next most severe sanction being cancellation. The Panel also decided to impose certain conditions in accordance with s. 44(1)(c)(iv) of the 2001 Act on the Respondent’s registration, which I have set out earlier at paras. 1 and 10 of my judgment.

19. The Respondent was provided with a transcript of the Sanction Hearing and the Panel’s

Decision as to Sanction on 12 March 2026. Receipt of the documentation was acknowledged by TUI, the Respondent’s representatives. The Respondent had 21 days to apply to the High Court for annulment of the decision, in accordance with s. 44(3) of the 2001 Act, but has not done so. He indicated in his affidavit sworn on 12 May 2026 that he accepts the sanction imposed by the Panel.

Decision on Application

20. The application now comes before me to confirm the Sanction Decision made by the Panel on 11 March 2026. The relevant statutory provision under which I have to consider the confirmation application is s. 44(5) of the 2001 Act. That subsection provides that on an application such as this, and where the relevant professional has not sought to annul the Panel’s decision;

“…the Court, on the hearing of the application shall, unless it sees good reason to the contrary, confirm the decision or may give such other directions to the Council as the Court considers appropriate…”

21. As I outlined in a recent judgment in this area, Teaching Council v CD [2026] IEHC 244, the phrase “good reason” has been considered in several cases and is regularly applied in the context of statutory provisions which arise for consideration in the Professional Disciplinary List in the High Court.

22. I said at para. 23 of my judgment in CD as follows:

“The first case in which the phrase was considered in the context of the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (as amended) was in Medical Council v M.A.G.A [2016] IEHC

779. It was further considered by Kelly P in Medical Council v Lohan-Mannion [2017] IEHC 401, by Faherty J in Teaching Council v S.R [2018] IEHC 582 and recently by me in Nursing and Midwifery Board of Ireland v Burke [2025] IEHC 557. The phrase essentially means that if the Court were to refuse to confirm a decision, it would have to be satisfied that the decision was one which no reasonable professional disciplinary or regulatory body could make in the circumstances or that there was some breach of the rules of natural and constitutional justice in the process, or that some serious and significant error of law or of fact had been made by the panel in reaching its decision…” (para. 23)

23. There is no question of any breach by the Panel of the rules of natural and constitutional justice in this case, and there is no serious error of law or of fact made by the Panel in reaching its decision. The only potential issue that strikes me in considering whether or not to confirm the decision is whether it could be said that the decision is one “which no reasonable professional disciplinary or regulatory body could make in the circumstances”.

24. The finding made by the Panel, on the face of it, is a very serious finding of professional misconduct which also breached various paragraphs of the Code. In those circumstances, it could be argued that the sanction which the Panel have sought to impose is too lenient. However, I am satisfied that in order to reach an assessment as to whether or not the decision was one which no reasonable professional disciplinary or regulatory body could make, it is necessary to have regard to all of the facts and circumstances of the particular case. I am satisfied that all of the facts of this case were set out and fully considered by the Panel in its very detailed Report and in its Sanction Decision. I accept the submission made by Eoghan O’Sullivan BL, counsel for the Council, that the Panel considered all of the relevant legal principles applicable to sanction before arriving at its Sanction Decision, and that it correctly considered a number of mitigating and aggravating factors as outlined earlier in my judgment. I have considered all of those factors in the context of the limited role which the Court has on an application such as this, which is not to agree or disagree with the Sanction Decision made but to consider the relevant factors as outlined at para. 23 in Teaching Council v CD above, and I have concluded that there is no “good reason” not to confirm the Sanction Decision made by the Panel. I am not satisfied that the decision made by the Panel as to sanction is a

decision “which no reasonable professional disciplinary or regulatory body could make”. Notwithstanding my misgivings and doubts as to the apparent leniency of the Panel’s Sanction Decision, I am satisfied that, in fact, when one considers the various relevant factors in this case, the decision is not one that is wholly unreasonable to such an extent as would prevent me from confirming the Panel’s Sanction Decision.

25. Therefore, I will confirm the decision made by the Panel as to sanction and I will make the orders sought in terms of para. A of the Originating Notice of Motion confirming the decision of the Panel that the Respondent be suspended for a period of 2 years pursuant to s. 44(5) of the 2001 Act and in terms of para. B confirming that certain conditions by imposed on the Respondent’s registration, namely, that for a period of 10 years, the Respondent must inform any prospective employer of the outcome of these proceedings, and provide such prospective employer with a copy of the Panel’s Report and Sanction Decision of the Council (with the names of witnesses and certain locations redacted) and that, for a period of 10 years, the registration of the Respondent would record the fact that conditions as to his fitness to teach have been imposed pursuant to s. 44(5) of the 2001 Act. I will also make an order that the Council be at liberty to communicate the terms of the orders made to the General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, The Teaching Regulation Agency (England), The Education Workforce Council (Wales) and The General Teaching Council for Scotland.