Teaching Council v CD

1 [APPROVED] [REDACTED] THE HIGH COURT [2026] IEHC 244 Record No. 2026 No. 65 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 CD RESPONDENT Ex tempore JUDGMENT of Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered on the 13th day of April, 2026 2 1. Introduction 1. This is my judgment on an application by the Teaching Council (the “Council”) pursuant to s. 44(5) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 (as amended) (the “2001 Act”) for various orders in relation to the Respondent. 2. The orders sought by the Council on this application are: First, an order under s. 44(5) confirming the decision of a panel of the Council’s Disciplinary Committee (the “Panel”) that the Respondent be suspended from the register for a period of one calendar month, from the date that such suspension becomes effective. Second, an order under s. 44(5) of the 2001 Act confirming the decision of the Panel that, subject to the first relief sought which I have just mentioned, the Respondent be retained on the Register, subject to certain conditions. Those conditions are (a) that the Respondent does not take up any post or position as a teacher that would involve access to money or finance, (b) that the Respondent inform any employer or prospective employer of these conditions, (c) that the Respondent attend a Consultant Psychiatrist at his own expense for the purpose of obtaining a report to evidence the medical advice and his adherence to such advice for recovery or continued recovery from his gambling addiction, for a period of 12 calendar months from the date the condition becomes effective, and to provide such a report to the Council within 15 months of the condition becoming effective. Third, an order that the Council be at liberty to communicate the terms of the order to a number of statutory bodies in the United Kingdom, namely, (i) The General Teaching Council for Northern Ireland, (ii) the Teaching Regulation Agency for England, (iii) the Education Workforce Council for Wales and (iv) the General Teaching Council for Scotland. 2. Factual Background to Application 3. The background to the application and the circumstances in which the application is made to the Court are set out in grounding affidavit of Declan O’Leary, Head of the Disciplinary 3 Committee Unit of the Teaching Council. In his affidavit, Mr O’Leary explains the various statutory functions of the Council, the various committees that are involved and those that have been involved in the consideration of the complaint in relation to the Respondent. He explains that the Respondent is a registered teacher whose name appears on the register. 4. As I mentioned earlier at the commencement of the hearing of this confirmation application, on 4 March 2026, I made an order under the common law jurisdiction described by O’Donnell J in the Supreme Court in Gilchrist v Sunday Newspapers Ltd [2017] 2 IR 284 prohibiting the publication of any material that might identify the Respondent. I also directed that the Respondent’s name would not be used during the hearing of the confirmation of sanction application today and that the Respondent would be named in anonymised form as CD. I did so primarily on the basis of significant medical evidence put before the court comprising of a number of reports from Professor Colin O’Gara in relation to a gambling addiction and disorder from which the Respondent is suffering and the connection of that addiction to the conduct which has given rise to the complaint against the Respondent. 5. A complaint was made by the Executive Committee of the Teaching Council to the Investigating Committee of the Council in relation to the Respondent under s. 42 of the 2001 Act. The complaint related to the alleged medical unfitness to teach of the Respondent and that the Respondent had been convicted in the State of an offence triable on indictment. In fact, the Respondent had been convicted of several offences arising from the theft of sums of just over €100,000 from the school in which he, at the relevant time, was the Principal. Ultimately, the Investigating Committee of the Council decided that there was a prima facie case to warrant action being taken in relation to the complaint. It referred the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council on grounds that the Respondent was medically unfit to teach and that the Respondent had been convicted of an offence triable on indictment. 4 6. A Notice of Inquiry (the “Notice”) dated 9 December 2024 was sent to the Respondent. The Notice contained the allegation that the Respondent was convicted of an offence triable on indictment (in fact, several offences) on 17 February 2022 at Laois Circuit Criminal Court and that on 2 June 2022 he was sentenced to a period of six years imprisonment, with four and a half years suspended. The offences in question arose under s. 4 of the Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001. The Respondent pleaded guilty to those offences and, ultimately, served approximately ten months in prison. The second allegation in the Notice was that the Respondent was medically unfit to teach on the basis of a gambling addiction and/or a gambling disorder. I should say that the Director of the Teaching Council did not proceed with the latter allegation of medical unfitness to teach. The matter proceeded before the Panel on the basis of the allegation of conviction within the State of an offence triable on indictment. Various restrictions were imposed on the identification of the Respondent during the course of the Panel’s hearings. Nonetheless, the hearing before the Panel did proceed in public, subject to restrictions on identification of the Respondent which I have mentioned. 7. Following the hearing of the inquiry before the Panel on 15 May 2025 and 3 June 2025, the Panel prepared a report on 16 June 2025. It found that the allegation that was proceeded with, namely, the Respondent’s conviction of the indictable offences, was proven as to fact. That allegation was admitted by the Respondent at the hearing. The Panel concluded that it should, therefore, make a finding that the Respondent had been convicted of the relevant offences, and it found that those convictions affected the Respondent’s fitness to teach, as it was required to do under s. 43(17)(b)(v) of the 2001 Act. I have been provided with the detailed report of the Panel of 16 June 2025 which sets out those findings. The four reasons in support of the Panel’s decision were set out in the report. The reasons were as follows: (i) the offences of which the Respondent was convicted were very serious, they involved the theft of a large sum of money from the school in which the Respondent was Principal, they involved 381 separate instances 5 of theft amounting to an excess of €100,000 and the teacher was convicted of 15 sample counts on a full facts basis; (ii) the gravity of the offences was underlined by the fact that, despite the mitigating factors which were considered by the Circuit Court, the Respondent was sentenced to a significant term of imprisonment; (iii) the offences involved a significant breach of trust on the part of a person in a position of authority and (iv) the school concerned, which provides special needs education to a vulnerable sector of society, had been deprived of significant resources as a consequence of the actions of the Respondent and the actions of the Respondent took place at a time when the school needed those resources for its development. 8. The Panel held a subsequent hearing on 30 October 2025 to deal with the question of sanction. The Panel heard extensive submissions in respect of sanction at that hearing. I have been provided with the transcript of the hearing. The Panel reserved its decision, and it convened to announce that decision on 7 January 2026. 9. The Panel decided that the appropriate sanction in this case was censure of the Respondent and suspension for a period of one calendar month from the date on which the suspension becomes effective. The Panel also decided that the Respondent be retained on the register subject to the three conditions that I indicated at para. 2 of this judgment. In its decision, the Panel set out a number of matters that were relevant to the sanction that it was recommending. It indicated that the findings made against the Respondent were serious. The Panel accepted that there is conduct more egregious than that which is the subject of the Panel’s findings in this case, such as physical or sexual abuse of a student. However, the Panel was of the view that the conduct the subject of the convictions was very serious as it consisted of the stealing of money from a school by its own Principal. The conduct was dishonest. It affected the school, the pupils and was central to teaching insofar as the Respondent’s conduct occurred while he was Principal of the school. The monies stolen deprived the school of resources and planned infrastructure. It stated that to submit that the theft the subject of the conviction does not ordinarily attract the 6 sanction of removal or suspension from the register would be to misunderstand the seriousness of the conduct in question. 10. The Panel then identified a series of aggravating circumstances that included dishonest conduct of the Respondent which included stealing from the school credit card and forging the signature of the Chairperson of the school’s Board of Management on cheques, the theft of school funds while the Respondent was Principal of the school, which the Panel said went to the very core of the role of Principal who is entrusted with the school’s money. It found that the theft constituted a breach of trust owed by the Respondent as a teacher and Principal to the school, its staff, its Board of Management and its pupils. The Panel also observed that the theft involved large sums of money, over €100,000 in total, and that the instances of theft were numerous and were carried out over a two-year period which meant that the conduct was part of a pattern and was not confined to one or even a few instances, but involved some 381 instances of theft. The Panel noted that the consequences of the theft were significant for the school, as it was deprived of the funds which were intended for school resources and planned infrastructure. The Respondent acknowledged that his theft meant that the school was left without money for valuable resources, and that that included funds which had been set aside for the building of a new school and/or an astro turf pitch. While that aggravating factor was reduced by a payment by the Respondent of some of the monies and the Respondent was committed to continuing to repay the debt, the school did have to operate without its money for many years. The Panel also noted that the theft was premeditated and deliberate, and it was carried out by the Respondent knowing that it was wrong, albeit in the context of a gambling addiction. Professor O’Gara stated in his report that the money was of no benefit to the Respondent in a situation where the money had been gambled away. The Panel concluded that the conduct the subject of the findings and the convictions was incompatible with teaching, and were it not for the mitigating 7 factors which the Panel had identified, the appropriate sanction would be removal from the register under s. 44(1)(a) of the 2001 Act. 11. The Panel went on to identify a number of mitigating factors which it felt reduced the appropriate sanction from one of removal from the register to suspension of the Respondent for a period of one calendar month, the imposition of conditions and a censure. The mitigating factors identified by the Panel included that the theft occurred at a time when the Respondent was suffering from a medical disability in the form of an addiction to gambling, which has a genetic and physiological basis. The Panel accepted the uncontroverted evidence of Professor O’Gara, including that the Respondent’s gambling addiction led directly to the theft, that the theft was carried out to feed the Respondent’s addiction, and that the theft was an integral part of the disease. That put context to the Respondent’s conduct leading to the admitted convictions. Further, the Panel considered that there were certain tragic circumstances in the Respondent’s life which were also related to gambling problems and which the Panel felt may have contributed to the Respondent’s own conduct leading to the convictions. 12. The Panel considered the admissions made by the Respondent to be a relevant mitigating factor, those admissions being consistent with the Respondent’s guilty pleas in the criminal proceedings. The admissions were made from the outset of the complaint, when the allegations were first made, and it was further noted that the Respondent admitted that the offences were serious. The Panel noted that the Respondent cooperated actively with the investigation and inquiry process, and that meant that the inquiry proceeded efficiently and expeditiously, and at a reduced cost. 13. The Panel considered it relevant that the Respondent had demonstrated remorse for his conduct, and that that was a feature of the Respondent’s dealing with matters from when the conduct was first detected. The Panel was satisfied that the Respondent’s remorse was and continued to be genuine. 8 14. The Panel next considered it relevant by way of mitigation that the Respondent had continuously demonstrated real and in-depth insight into his conduct and noted the Respondent’s appreciation of the fact that his convictions brought the profession of teaching into disrepute. Further, the Respondent had taken active steps to remediate himself and to repay the school, leading to him obtaining employment as a teacher in a different school in a transparent manner, where he continues to be a contributor to the educational needs of young people. The Panel noted that the Respondent had paid back the majority of the monies stolen, and that the Respondent had entered into an agreement with the school to repay the remainder of the debt in instalments. 15. The Panel considered it relevant to mitigation that the Respondent had actively invested in and undertaken remediation and rehabilitation to deal with his addiction to gambling since the theft the subject of the convictions had occurred, and had been successful in doing so while actively continuing in that remediation and rehabilitation. That included attending at an inpatient treatment centre for addiction, which it was noted was probing, and which a patient would not get through unless the patient was truly committed. The Respondent also attended Gamblers Anonymous meetings and engaged with family to ensure oversight of his finances. That demonstrated a real intention by the Respondent to deal with his gambling addiction and it was noted by Professor O’Gara in his report of March 2025 that the Respondent was well into recovery and that he “continued to meet the criteria for sustained recovery”. The Panel noted that the Respondent served time in prison between June 2022 and April 2023 and, to that extent, he had been punished for his conduct which was the subject of the convictions. In the circumstances, the Panel did not consider that the length of the imprisonment was an aggravating factor. 16. The Panel took into account that the Respondent was unable to work while in prison, and that he had difficulty obtaining work following his release when determining the appropriateness 9 of the recommendation of the one-month suspension. The Panel noted that since his release from prison, the Respondent had sought and succeeded in obtaining employment as a teacher in difficult circumstances and noted the evidence of the Respondent that to obtain employment in his circumstances, he applied for 75 jobs and attended 14 interviews, which was due in large part to the fact that he had to disclose, and did disclose, his convictions. That was held by the Panel to be to the Respondent’s credit. Finally, the Panel noted the evidence that the Respondent is an excellent teacher and it was accepted by the Director of the Teaching Council that he had no serious disciplinary history and had had a blemish-free career up to the conduct leading to the convictions. 17. The Panel then considered the appropriate principles to be applied in determining the appropriate sanction to impose on the Respondent. It concluded that the conduct leading to the convictions had brought the profession of teaching into disrepute, and that that had been acknowledged by the Respondent. It noted that the sanction, including the suspension and censure, was necessary, appropriate and proportionate in terms of conveying to the profession at large the gravity of the conduct in this case and in terms of promoting public confidence in the profession, while at the same time assisting the Respondent with as much leniency as possible, as required under the relevant legal principles applicable to the imposition of sanctions. The Panel did not agree that a sanction of suspension amounted to an overregulation, as had been submitted on behalf of the Respondent. It considered that the imposition of a suspension, censure and conditions was necessary, appropriate, proportionate and fair. It stated that the recommended sanction would send a message to other teachers, whether afflicted with a gambling habit or not, that stealing will not go without severe punishment so as to deter similar conduct by other members of the profession, which ultimately goes to the protection of the public. The sanction also demonstrated to members of the profession that remorse for certain conduct and insight into an addiction on behalf of a registrant, along with the other 10 features which the Panel had identified by way of mitigation, would be rewarded insofar as possibly reducing sanction for conduct which would otherwise result in removal from the register. The Panel felt it important to highlight those mitigating factors and to explain why it was recommending a sanction for such a short period. The sanction which it was imposing, subject to confirmation of the Court, would promote and restore public confidence in the teaching profession and the integrity of the regulation of teachers. 18. The Respondent did not seek to appeal the sanction recommended by the Panel. In fact, the Respondent has supported the decision of the Panel on this confirmation application. In the absence of an appeal, the Council was required to bring this application to the Court for confirmation. That is the application that I am dealing with in my judgment this afternoon. 3. Submissions on timing of suspension 19. In the course of the application, Ms Cathy Maguire SC for the Respondent, drew my attention to a number of matters which she relied on to demonstrate that the recommended sanction was a proportionate and appropriate sanction in the circumstances. 20. The only matter of contention that arose in the course of the application was whether or not I should direct that the suspension element of the sanction for one calendar month, in the event that I was to confirm the recommended sanction, should start and run from 1 July 2026. An application in those terms was made by Ms Maguire SC. It was opposed by Mr Eoghan O’Sullivan BL on behalf of the Council. While he accepted that the Court has jurisdiction to direct that a suspension can commence from a specified future date, his submission on behalf of the Council was that this application was not an appropriate case in which to exercise that jurisdiction, and that such an order should only be made by the Court where there is very good reason advanced in support of doing so and where there are compelling reasons provided, such as where there is particular prejudice to either the Respondent in terms of having to put his or 11 her affairs in order before a suspension can take effect, or indeed where there is insuperable prejudice caused to a third party. Mr O’Sullivan BL’s submission was that the evidence in this case does not come close to establishing a good reason to defer the suspension period. That was clearly not accepted by Ms Maguire SC, who relied on the evidence put forward on behalf of the Respondent in his affidavit sworn on 2 April 2026 in respect of the confirmation application. The Respondent’s affidavit primarily deals with his request that the suspension for one calendar month, if confirmed, would commence on 1 July 2026, on the basis that that is the month which would least inconvenience the school where he now teaches. The Respondent also outlined the background of the case and fully admitted all of the matters found in the Panel’s decision and fully accepted the sanction imposed by the Panel. He explained the difficulties he had in obtaining employment following his release from prison, which I have mentioned earlier. He set out the repayments that he has made to the school. At the point at which the affidavit was sworn on 2 April 2026, the repayments made to the school by the Respondent amounted to over €76,000 and he stated that he has continued to comply with the instalment agreement entered into with the school for repayment of the balance of stolen monies. He noted that, since December 2024, he has been working at a special school for children with complex needs, that he has a permanent teaching contract at that school, and that he was anxious to ensure that the period of suspension, which he accepts he must serve, would operate over a period which would entail the least disruption and inconvenience possible to the school and to its pupils. To that end, the Respondent’s solicitors corresponded with his current employer’s school indicating that it was necessary for him to identify a calendar month to the Court for the suspension to operate and sought to ascertain a period of time which would least inconvenience the school. The school indicated what it considered to be the optimal time for it, which was the full month of July 2026. 12 21. Mr O’Sullivan BL does not agree with a deferral of the suspension, and contends that this is not a case in which a suspension should commence at a time other than in the relatively immediate term. 4. Relevant Statutory Provisions 22. The relevant statutory provision under which I have to consider this confirmation application is s. 44(5) of the 2001 Act. That provides that in an application such as this, where an application is made to confirm a decision and where there is no appeal by the teacher, the Court, on the hearing of the application, “shall” unless it sees “good reason” to the contrary, confirm the decision or give such other directions to the Council as the Court considers appropriate and may make such order as to costs as it considers appropriate. Therefore, I am required to confirm the decision unless I see “good reason” to the contrary. 5. Meaning of “Good Reason” 23. That phrase has been considered in a number of cases, and is regularly applied in the Professional Disciplinary List in the High Court. 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 13 law or of fact had been made by the panel in reaching its decision. There is no question of any of those matters in this case. 6. Application of the Statutory Test 24. While, on the face of it, the sanction imposed, at least insofar as the period of suspension is concerned, might seem rather lenient, I am required to consider the full context of the suspension and the rationale put forward by the Panel for deciding on the period of suspension of one calendar month. The Panel pointed out that without the mitigating factors which featured in this case, the likely sanction would have been removal from the register. In my view, the principal mitigating factor in this case is the gambling addiction/gambling disorder from which the Respondent suffers. The evidence in relation to this addiction was supported by the various reports of Professor O’Gara, who is one of the foremost experts on the whole area of addiction. 25. To my mind, that is a very significant factor in this case and it is one that persuades me that the sanction, which on the face of it appears very lenient, is in fact a sanction which the Panel was entitled reasonably to impose. It is not for me to agree or disagree with the recommended sanction. 26. On an application such as this, I must ask whether the sanction was one which no reasonable panel could have imposed. I am not satisfied that that is the case here. It seems to be that it was within the Panel’s discretion to impose the sanction which it did and to determine that the period of one calendar month was the appropriate time period for the suspension, irrespective of the sanction seeming somewhat lenient at first glance. 27. The decision of the Panel in this case demonstrates how necessary it is in a case such as this to have regard to all of the relevant facts in the case, in terms of both aggravation and mitigation, and to take account of the whole context of the case, as opposed to isolating and only focusing on certain high level details. It is necessary for a panel to be fully familiar with all of the facts, 14 as the Panel clearly was in this case, and it is necessary for the Court to consider all of those facts when considering whether there is “good reason” not to confirm the Panel’s decision. 7. Decision on the Application 28. I am satisfied that considering the period of suspension with the censure and with the conditions which I have mentioned, I should confirm the decision of the Panel. I am not satisfied that there exists “good reason” not to do so. Therefore, I will confirm the decision of the Panel of the Disciplinary Committee of the Teaching Council. 8. Deferral of Suspension 29. An issue which I also must determine is the of the timing of the suspension, and whether I should direct that the suspension of one calendar month should commence in the relatively immediate term, as Mr O’Sullivan BL submitted on behalf of the Council, or whether I should direct that the suspension should commence from 1 July 2026, as is contended for by Ms Maguire SC on behalf of the Respondent. 30. It is acknowledged by Mr O’Sullivan BL that I have jurisdiction to direct that the suspension would commence at a future date and that is envisaged by the wording of the sanction imposed by the Panel. Para. A of the Originating Notice of Motion sets out that the period of suspension, if confirmed by the Court, would run for “a period of one calendar month from the date that such suspension becomes effective”. 31. I am persuaded by the evidence of the Respondent as set out in his affidavit, which I have summarised earlier, which sets out a desire not to unduly discommode the special education school at which he is teaching and its pupils in the lead up to the end of the school year. This is, in my view, a good reason to direct that the suspension should run from 1 July 2026. I do not accept that it is necessary in all cases to have to demonstrate the sort of overwhelmingly 15 compelling reasons for setting a suspension at a future date, as submitted by Mr O’Sullivan BL on behalf of the Council. I am satisfied, therefore, that I should direct that the suspension period of one calendar month will commence on 1 July 2026, and should run for that calendar month. 32. This is an exceptional case, and it is difficult to see how the facts of this case would be replicated. The fact that this application deals with a teacher at a special education school and the fact that the end of the school year is approaching has persuaded me that there is good reason for me to exercise my discretion to direct that the suspension aspect of the sanction would come into effect on 1 July 2026. 9. Orders Made 33. Having given my decision on the suspension aspect of the sanction, I will now make an order in terms of the relief sought at para. (A) of the Originating Notice of Motion. I will also make an order in terms of the relief sought at paras. (B) and (C) dealing with the conditions, and that the Council be at liberty to communicate the terms of the order made to the relevant bodies which I have mentioned at para. 2 of my judgment.