Previous Page  255 / 270 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 255 / 270 Next Page
Page Background

GAZETTE

JULY-AUGUST

1

RECENT IRISH CASES

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW —

EDUCATION

The effect of Article 42.4 of the

Constitution, which prescribes that

the State shall provide

for

free

primary education and the extent of

constitutional duty of the State

acting through the Minister for

Education to provide buildings,

teachers, means of transport for

pupils and minimum standards.

In the parish of Drimoleague, Co.

Cork, in 1975, there was a mixed

four-teacher

school

called

Drimoleague National School which

had 133 pupils on its roll, and two

other national schools called Knock

Bui

and

Castledonovan.

The

principal teacher at the Drimoleague

National School was due to retire on

30 June 1975. Rule 15(1) of the

Rules of the National Schools

provided that the Manager, who had

the duty of appointing the principal

teacher, had to comply with Rule 76

in making the appointment, which

latter Rule provided that in schools

which had from 80 to 199 pupils, the

person appointed had to have the

qualifications, that his last three

years of service had been satisfactory

and that he had given in all not less

than five years service as a teacher.

In June 1975, Father Crowley, the

Manager wrote to the Minister for

Education ("the Minister") that he

had been directed by the patron of

the school (the Bishop of Cork, Dr.

Lucey) to appoint Mr. Nicholas

McCarthy as principal teacher. Mr.

McCarthy, who had been highly

recommended by the divisional

inspector of schools as the most

suitable candidate, had not on the

30th of June 1975 five years service

as a teacher; he would not have this

until 1st July 1976. When Fr.

Crowley

appointed

Nicholas

McCarthy as principal teacher, the

Minister refused to sanction his

appointment as permanent principal

teacher and Father Crowley then

appointed him to act as temporary

principal teacher, a step which the

Minister approved. The Minister

directed Fr. Crowley to re-advertise

the post and the same persons

applied again, and Mr. McCarthy

was so appointed as temporary

principal teacher.

The Irish National Teachers

Organisation ("the I.N.T.O."), a

registered trade union, was pressing

the claims of Mr. James Collins, and

organiser of the I.N.T.O. and a

member of its national executive,

whom the Minister regarded as

unsuitable. The I.N.T.O. suspected

that Fr. Crowley, acting under the

orders of the Bishop, was going to

retain Mr. McCarthy as a temporary

teacher until 1 July 1976 and then,

when he was eligible, to appoint him

as permanent principal teacher. In

October

1975,

a

board

of

management of which Fr. Crowley

was chairman took over the duties

which he had previously performed.

In 1976, the I.N.T.O. threatened

strike action against the Minister

because he had

allowed

the

appointment of an ineligible person

as principal teacher in a temporary

capacity while eligible applicants

were available. On 16 March 1976,

the I.N.T.O. wrote to Fr. Crowley to

inform him that unless he re-

advertised the position and undertook

to appoint a qualified person, the

teachers in the three schools in the

parish of Drimoleague would be

withdrawn on 29 March 1976. As

Fr. Crowley did not give this

undertaking, the I.N.T.O. placed

pickets on the three schools on 29

March 1976 and all the teachers at

the three schools, except Mr.

McCarthy, did not pass them. These

pickets were continued until 5 May

1976 when they were withdrawn but

the teachers at the three schools

continued the strike and did not

attend at the schools.

The parents of the children

attending these three schools tried to

get their children into other schools

but, on 20 August 1976, the

I.N.T.O. sent a circular to all their

members in the areas adjoining

Drimoleague directing them not to

enrol pupils from Drimoleague. The

instruction in this circular remained

in force until 13 June 1977 when it

was withdrawn. This circular is the

foundation of the proceedings against

the I.N.T.O. and the members of its

Central Executive Committee.

When the parents could not get

their children into adjoining schools,

they tried to recruit teachers. Mr.

McCarthy, who had been appointed

permanent principal teacher in July

1976 on the recommendation of a

board of assessors, continued to

teach, and a retired lady teacher

volunteered to do so, and a number

of girls who had got their Leaving

Certificates but were not qualified as

teachers tried to do so. Fr. Crowley

tried to persuade the Minister to pay

these temporary teachers but he

refused to do so and they were paid

by contributions made by the parents

to a fund. The education received by

the younger children who were not

taught by Mr. McCarthy was

seriously deficient.

On 21 April 1977, the parents,

suing in the names of their children,

brought proceedings against Ireland,

the Minister, the Attorney General,

the I.N.T.O. and the members of

the I.N.T.O. Central Executive

Committee claiming against the first

three defendants the provision of free

primary education within the parish

of Drimoleague and claiming against

the other defendants (i.e. the

I.N.T.O. and its Central Executive

Committee), damages for conspiracy.

Whe interlocutory relief was sought,

a compromise was reached under

which, from 1 January 1978, the

children were to be brought to

adjoining schools by buses provided

and paid for by the Minister and

taught there.

The High Court (McMahon J.)

had found that the circular of 20

August 1976 was an unlawful

interference

with

the

infants'

constitutional rights and that the

Minister had failed to carry out his

constitutional duty to provide for free

primary education for the infant

plaintiffs from 1 April 1976 to 31

December 1977.

In the High Court, the plaintiffs'

main case was that they had a right

to be educated in their own parish

and that their transport to and from

schools in adjoining parishes was not

a performance by the Minister of the

State's constitutional duty. They also

said that the mode of transport was

unsatisfactory and imposed great

hardship on them. The High Court

had rejected all these contentions and

the Plaintiffs did not appeal to the

Supreme Court against this part of

the High Court judgment.

Held:

(per Kenny J. with Henchy

and Griffin JJ.; and with O'Higgins