Q. (M.) v. Gleeson [1997] IEHC 26; [1998] 4 IR 85 (13th February, 1997)

Q. (M.) v. Gleeson [1997] IEHC 26; [1998] 4 IR 85 (13th February, 1997)

Both the E.H.B. and V.E.C. failed to afford the applicant constitutional justice and fair procedures by not informing him of the allegations, not giving him an adequate opportunity to defend himself, and not taking reasonable care in checking the accuracy of information before making decisions adverse to him. The V.E.C.'s removal of the applicant from the course was unlawful.

Citation
[1997] IEHC 26
Parties
Applicant: M. Q.; Fourth Respondent: Eastern Health Board (E.H.B.); Second Respondent: Vocational Education Committee (V.E.C.); First Respondent: Mr. Gleeson; Third Respondent: Mr. Chance
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment
Outcome
Decision to remove applicant from course struck down as unlawful; applicant entitled to fair procedures.
Legal Topics
Fair Procedures, Natural Justice, Statutory Duties, Child Welfare, Student Expulsion, Information Dissemination
Administrative Law Education Law Child Protection Law Fair Procedures Natural Justice Statutory Duties Child Welfare Student Expulsion +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

M. Q.

Applicant

Eastern Health Board (E.H.B.)

Fourth Respondent

Vocational Education Committee (V.E.C.)

Second Respondent

Mr. Gleeson

First Respondent

Mr. Chance

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the E.H.B. and V.E.C. complied with constitutional justice and fair procedures in removing the applicant from a child care course
  2. 2 Scope of statutory duty of E.H.B. to protect children under Child Care Act, 1991
  3. 3 Duty of E.H.B. to alleged abuser regarding notification and opportunity to respond

Ratio Decidendi

Both the E.H.B. and V.E.C. failed to afford the applicant constitutional justice and fair procedures by not informing him of the allegations, not giving him an adequate opportunity to defend himself, and not taking reasonable care in checking the accuracy of information before making decisions adverse to him. The V.E.C.'s removal of the applicant from the course was unlawful.

Court Disposition

Decision to remove applicant from course struck down as unlawful; applicant entitled to fair procedures.

Orders

  • E.H.B. and V.E.C. must comply with fair procedures before seeking applicant's removal from course.
  • Applicant allowed to complete course (excluding final work placement with children) per prior consent order.