Teaching Council v Clancy

1 [APPROVED] THE HIGH COURT [2026] IEHC 265 Record No. 2026 No. 156 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 JAMES CLANCY RESPONDENT Ex tempore JUDGMENT of Mr Justice David Barniville, President of the High Court, delivered on the 16th day of April, 2026 2 1. Introduction 1. This is my judgment on an application brought by the Teaching Council (the “Council”) for an order under s. 44(5) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 (as amended) (the “2001 Act”) to confirm the decision of the Panel of the Disciplinary Committee of the Council (the “Panel”) that the Respondent be removed from the register and that he would not be eligible to apply to be restored to the register under s. 31 of the 2001 Act for a period of 10 years, beginning on the date of his removal from the register. The Council also seeks an order that it be at liberty to communicate the terms of the order to (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 2. The circumstances in which the application is made are set out in the grounding affidavit of Declan O’Leary, Head of the Disciplinary Committee Unit of the Council. He explains that the Council is a statutory body established under Part 5 of the 2001 Act. It established and maintains a register of teachers. It also receives and considers complaints against registered teachers and, where necessary, it holds inquiries into the fitness to teach of registered teachers. 3. The Respondent is a teacher who appears on the register. His registration is a conditional registration dated until April 2026 as, at the time of his registration with the Council, he had not yet completed and still does not hold a Teacher Education Qualification (“TEQ”). 4. A complaint was made against the Respondent to the Council’s Investigating Committee in March 2024. That complaint was made under s. 42 of the 2001 Act by the Chief Executive of Cork Education and Training Board (the “Cork ETB”). Essentially, the complaint was that the Respondent had made a series of false representations concerning his professional 3 status, qualifications, and experience and his employment record in relation to applications for 25 positions (23 teaching and 2 non-teaching positions) with the Cork ETB in 2023. 5. The Investigating Committee of the Council considered the complaint under s. 42 of the 2001 Act. Ultimately, following a number of meetings of the Investigating Committee, on 9 December 2024, the Investigating Committee decided, 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. It decided to refer the complaint to the Disciplinary Committee of the Council on the grounds of alleged professional misconduct on the part of the Respondent, as referred to in s. 42(1)(b) of the 2001 Act, and on the grounds that the Respondent had engaged in conduct which was contrary to the Council’s Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers (2nd Edition, July 2016) established by the Council under s. 7(2)(b) of the 2001 Act (the “Code”). 3. Notice of Inquiry 6. A Notice of Inquiry (the “Notice”) dated 26 November 2025 set out the allegations against the Respondent and was prepared on behalf of the Director of the Teaching Council (the “Director”) by her legal representatives. The Notice was sent to the Respondent on 27 November 2025. In the Notice, it was alleged that, in respect of the 25 applications that the Respondent made to the Cork ETB, he had falsely represented that he held certain recognised teaching qualifications, that he held a full registration with the Council, that he held a registration with the Council in particular subjects, that he held a Masters of Professional Education qualification from the University of Limerick, that he had been employed in certain colleges (including the Cork ETB), and that he had certain experience, which was all false and untrue. 4 4. The Inquiry 7. The Panel held a preliminary meeting on 12 January 2026 in relation to the Inquiry involving the Respondent. The Respondent applied in advance in writing requesting that the Inquiry take place in private, as provided for under s. 43(9) of the 2001 Act. The Panel refused that application and decided that the Inquiry should take place in public. The Panel gave reasons for that decision. It was satisfied that there was no basis on which the Inquiry could take place in private. 8. The Inquiry then proceeded over the course of two days on 16 and 17 February 2026. The Respondent did not attend and was not legally represented at the Inquiry. The Panel had the assistance of a legal assessor, Mr Paul McGarry SC, during the course of the Inquiry. In the absence of the Respondent, the Panel first had to decide whether it was appropriate to proceed with the Inquiry. The Panel, having obtained the advice of the legal assessor, decided to proceed with the Inquiry. 9. The Panel then heard evidence from a number of witnesses, obtained the advices of the legal assessor, and made its findings in relation to the allegations which were set out in a report dated 23 February 2026 (the “Report”). 5. The Report 10. In its Report, the Panel made findings of fact and findings of professional misconduct and breaches of the relevant provisions of the Code. 11. In terms of the findings of fact, the Panel found that each of the allegations against the Respondent were proven as to fact. It referred to the 25 applications made by the Respondent to Cork ETB, which I have mentioned, namely, 23 teaching applications and 2 non-teaching applications. The Report noted that the Panel was provided with and heard detailed evidence about the application forms completed by the Respondent in each case. The Report noted 5 that the Panel was satisfied by reference to those applications, in respect of which detailed evidence was given, that information provided in the applications was false. 12. In particular, the Respondent made 21 applications in which he falsely stated that he held a Masters of Professional Education qualification from the University of Limerick. In two further applications, the Respondent falsely stated that he held a Bachelor of Education qualification from the University of Limerick. In another application, the Respondent falsely stated that he held a Quality and Qualifications Ireland (“QQI”) qualification from the University of Limerick. In a further application, the Respondent falsely stated that he held a Sports Science degree from the University of Limerick. In 22 of the applications for teaching positions, the Respondent made a false representation to the effect that he held a full registration with the Council as opposed to a conditional registration. In a number of the applications, the Respondent falsely represented that he held a recognised qualification for the subject area advertised. Finally, in 15 of the applications for teaching positions, the Respondent falsely stated that he held registration with the Council for Science, English, Physical Education and Gaeilge, when that was not the case. 13. The Panel noted in the Report that none of the allegations were denied at any stage by the Respondent. On a number of occasions, in correspondence prior to the Inquiry, the Respondent acknowledged that he had been untruthful in relation to his qualifications to teach. Those acknowledgments were contained in a number of emails to the Council dated 13 June 2024, 10 September 2024 and 1 October 2024. The Panel was satisfied that the facts alleged in the Notice were proven beyond reasonable doubt. 14. The Panel then made findings of professional misconduct as against the Respondent, having been satisfied that the proven facts amounted to misconduct, in that by reference to one of more of the allegations proven, taken individually or in combination or cumulatively, the conduct of the Respondent amounted to disgraceful or dishonourable conduct, either in the 6 course of the profession or otherwise than in the course of the profession, which was of such a serious nature as would bring the profession into disrepute. 15. The Panel stated that even though the Respondent was not successful in any of the competitions and did not take up any of the positions sought, it is essential that information provided by applicants for teaching positions be accurate and reliable. The Panel noted that the need for that accuracy and reliability is central to the need to protect the public, namely parents, students and colleagues, in the context of a regulated profession. 16. The Panel made findings that the Respondent had breached a number of the provisions of the Code, in particular, para. 2.1 which relates to professional integrity in terms of teachers being required “to act with honesty and integrity in all parts of their work” (para. 2.1), para. 2.3 which requires teachers to “represent themselves, their professional status, qualifications and experience honestly” (para. 2.3) and para. 3.1 which relates to professional misconduct and the requirement for teachers to “uphold the reputation and standing of the profession” (para. 3.1). 6. The Sanction 17. The Panel reconvened to consider the question of sanction on 13 March 2026. The Respondent did not attend and was not present at that hearing. Nonetheless, the Panel decided that it was appropriate to proceed in his absence as it was satisfied that the Respondent was aware that a hearing as to sanction was to proceed on that day. The Panel heard submissions on behalf of the Director on the question of sanction and had the benefit of further advice from its legal assessor, Mr McGarry SC, as it had during the Inquiry. The Panel reached a decision in relation to sanction, and it set out its decision in writing on 13 March 2026. The Panel decided, pursuant to s. 44(1)(a) of the 2001 Act, to remove the Respondent from the register and that the Respondent would not be eligible to reapply under 7 s. 31 of the 2001 Act to be restored to the register for a period of 10 years, beginning on the date of his removal from the register. 18. The Panel set out its reasons for its decision. It determined that the nature of the conduct which the Respondent had engaged in was the most relevant factor to be taken into account. It noted that the conduct of the Respondent was manifestly dishonest. The Respondent made multiple applications for teaching posts for which he was not qualified, and provided false information to prospective employers on numerous occasions. The Panel noted that the impact of the intentions of the Respondent in this regard was potentially very serious for the public and for students. If his deception had resulted in him being appointed to these positions, the Panel noted that he would have been in a position to teach students in subject areas for which he had no qualification. The Panel stated that the knock-on effect for the students who may have been impacted was a matter of grave concern. The Panel referred to the relevant Teaching Council Sanction Guidance Document (September 2021), which identifies in s. 7.2 the factors that should be considered in imposing sanction. In that respect, the Panel considered a number of relevant points. It considered the question of proportionality, and it stated that that involved “balancing the maintenance of the standards of professional conduct of teachers and the interests of the public against those of the [Respondent]” (para. 7.2). The Panel determined that the removal of the Respondent from the register was the sanction that best struck that balance. 19. The Panel had regard to mitigating factors. However, it noted that no mitigating factors had been identified, such as would cause the Panel to consider a more lenient sanction. The Panel noted that no insight had been shown by the Respondent into his conduct. The Panel was also satisfied that this was not a case in which the Respondent’s conduct might be said to have no potential adverse consequences for others, nor could his conduct be characterised as minor errors. 8 20. The Panel then considered the question of aggravating factors, and it considered that the following were relevant. First, the matters at issue were undoubtedly serious. Second, the Panel believed that the facts were indicative of a pattern of conduct, as opposed to an isolated event. It noted that this was a situation in which the Respondent had made multiple applications containing false information. Third, it appeared to the Panel that the behaviour was deliberate and intentional. The Panel did not have available to it any evidence about the character and previous history of the Respondent, and so no mitigating factors could be identified in this respect. However, the Panel did note that it was not aware of any previous sanctions having been imposed against the Respondent. 21. The Panel found, having regard to the need to protect the public, that there was a potential risk of future harm posed by the Respondent’s conduct. In addition, it concluded that it was necessary to deter others in the profession from engaging in conduct of a similar type and to send an appropriate message to reassure the public that teaching is a well-regulated profession. 22. The Panel went on to consider the potential range of sanctions available to it under s. 44 of the 2001 Act. It began with considering the most lenient sanction, and proceeded to consider sanctions across the spectrum of a more serious nature. The Panel did not consider a sanction more lenient than cancellation of registration to be appropriate in the circumstances, having regard to the wholesale dishonesty identified on the part of the Respondent. The Panel concluded that it would be manifestly inappropriate for the conduct of the Respondent to be marked by reference to censure, advice or admonishment. Similarly, the Panel did not believe that the Respondent should be retained on the register subject to conditions on his registration. It noted that it was difficult to imagine a condition which could be said to meet the obligations identified in the Teaching Council Sanction Guidance Document (September 2021). The Panel was also concerned that a period of suspension, which would be limited 9 to a period of 2 years under s. 44(1)(b) of the 2001 Act, would not be sufficient to protect the public. The Panel believed that, having regard to the overriding obligation to protect the public from harm in the future, it was appropriate to mark its dissatisfaction with the misconduct of the Respondent and that the appropriate sanction in the circumstances was cancellation of his registration with a provision that he could not apply for restoration to the register for a period of 10 years. 7. The Confirmation Application 23. The Panel’s decision was provided to the Respondent by email dated 13 March 2026. As noted in a ruling that I gave at the outset of the hearing of this application, the Respondent acknowledged receipt of the documentation sent to him on 13 March 2026 by email of 14 March 2026. He was personally served with copies of that documentation, including the Panel’s decision, on 16 March 2026. He was provided with a copy of the transcript of the sanction hearing by email dated 16 March 2026 and the Respondent acknowledged receipt of that correspondence on the same date. The Respondent had 21 days to apply to the High Court for annulment of the Panel’s decision in accordance with s. 44(3) of the 2001 Act, but he did not do so. In those circumstances, the Council was required under s. 44(5) of the 2001 to apply to the High Court for confirmation of the decision within 21 days of the expiry of the time period for the Respondent to apply to annul the Panel’s decision. The Council has now made that application to me. 10 8. Relevant Legal Principles 24. The application for confirmation of sanction is made by the Council under s. 44(5) of the 2001 Act. Under that provision, it is provided that where an application for annulment of the decision is not made, the Council is required, within the time period I have mentioned, the make an application to the High Court on an ex parte basis for confirmation of the Panel’s decision. Section 44(5) of the 2001 Act provides that, when such an application is made, the Court 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. The Court may also make such order as to costs as it considers appropriate. 25. Although that subsection provides that the application for confirmation can be made by the Council on an ex parte basis, as I indicated in my ruling at the outset of this application, the Council did serve the papers in respect of this application on the Respondent. An affidavit of service sworn by Mr John Kelliher on 13 April 2026 sets out that the Respondent was personally served with the papers on 9 April 2026. The Respondent was also served with the papers for the application for confirmation by email on 7 April 2026 and on 8 April 2026 and acknowledged receipt of those emails by use of graphical emoticons or emojis, and I was satisfied on that basis that the Respondent had been properly served and that the application could proceed today. 9. Decision on Application 26. The test in s. 44(5) of the 2001 Act, which I have mentioned, provides that the Court is required to confirm the decision of the Council unless it sees “good reason” not to do so. As Ms Neasa Bird BL on behalf of the Council outlined in her application, that is a statutory formulation which exists in a number of the different statutes governing regulated professions. These include the Medical Practitioners Act 2007 (as amended), the Health and 11 Social Care Practitioners Act 2005 (as amended) and the Dental Council Act 1985 (as amended). This statutory formulation has been considered by the High Court in various cases including Medical Council v M.A.G.A [2016] IEHC 779 (Kelly P), in Medical Council v Lohan-Mannion [2017] IEHC 401 (Kelly P), in Teaching Council v S.R [2018] IEHC 582 (Faherty J) and recently by me in Teaching Council v CD [2026] IEHC 244. It is a test that has been regularly applied by myself and by other judges in the Professional Disciplinary List. I reviewed the cases of M.A.G.A, Lohan Mannion and S.R and confirmed my agreement with the test as set out and interpreted in those cases in my judgment in Nursing and Midwifery Board v Burke [2025] IEHC 557. Essentially, the test provides that the Court will be required to confirm the relevant decision unless there exists a procedural impropriety or irregularity, a failure to observe the standards of natural and constitutional justice, a serious and significant error (either of fact or of law), or unless the Court is satisfied that the decision is one that no reasonable regulatory body could take on the basis of the evidence before it. Therefore, I am required to confirm the decision of the Panel in this case unless any of those factors which I have mentioned arise. I am not satisfied that any of those factors are present in this case. In my view, this was a decision which was an appropriate, proper and proportionate decision, and one which complied with all of the relevant legal principles applicable to sanctioning in professional disciplinary cases. In those circumstances, it is clear that this is not a case where there is “good reason” not to confirm the Panel’s decision. Therefore, I will confirm the decision of the Panel. 10. Orders Made 27. I will make an order in terms of para. (A) of the Originating Motion ex parte confirming the decision of the Panel to remove the Respondent from the register and to prohibit him from applying for restoration for a period of 10 years. I will also make an order in terms of para. 12 (B) giving liberty to the Council to communicate the terms of the order made to (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, in circumstances where there is no automatic notification to those bodies under the European Union Internal Market Information (“IMI”) Notification System. I note that the Council does not seek its costs of this application. Therefore, I will make no order as to costs.