High Court confirms decision to suspend teacher who engaged in inappropriate relationship with student

About this case:

• Citation:
  [2026] IEHC 345
• Judgment:
  External link
• Court:
  High Court
• Judge:
  Mr Justice David Barniville

Delivering the ex tempore judgment of the High Court in May, Mr Justice David Barniville confirmed the sanction decision of a panel of the Teaching Council, notwithstanding the court’s “misgivings and doubts as to the apparent leniency” of the decision.

Background

In November 2021, a complaint was made against the respondent to the Teaching Council’s Investigating Committee by the mother of a former student of the respondent.

The complaint concerned an allegation of professional misconduct and conduct amounting to a breach of the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers (Updated 2nd Edition, July 2016).

The complaint was referred to the Disciplinary Committee of the Teaching Council. The Notice of Inquiry sent to the respondent contained a single allegation, that in or around 2020, the respondent engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or inappropriate communication with a student while he was a teacher at a named school contrary to paras. 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.6 and 3.7 of the Code.

The Teaching Council

A Panel of the Disciplinary Committee held an inquiry in private over five days. Following the inquiry, the Panel prepared a report which found that the allegations as against the respondent were proven to be true.

The Panel met again on 11 March 2026 to determine the appropriate sanction for the respondent, concluding that the respondent should be suspended from the register pursuant to s.44(1)(b) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 for two years.

The Panel further determined that the respondent’s registration would be subject to conditions for 10 years, namely that the respondent must inform any prospective employer of the outcome of the proceedings and must furnish them with a copy of the report and the Panel’s sanction decision, and that his registration would record the fact that conditions on his fitness to teach had been imposed.

The Panel reasoned that the sanction was appropriate where the respondent’s misconduct was at the most extreme end of the spectrum and where the respondent was in a position of trust in relation to the student in question, who was vulnerable due to her age and mental health issues which she was suffering from at the time.

Having referred to the Teaching Council Sanction Guidance Document of September 2021, the Panel had regard to the respondent’s unblemished teaching career and character evidence called on his behalf as mitigating factors. The Panel also considered inter alia the respondent’s age (57), his need to earn a livelihood to support his family, and the fact that removal from the register would render that very difficult.

As to aggravating factors, the Panel found inter alia that the facts were indicative of a pattern of behaviour as opposed to an isolated event, and that the behaviour was deliberate and intentional.

The Panel considered that the circumstances of the case were very unusual and that by the time of its decision as to sanction, the respondent had married the former student in question and they had been together for 5 years at that point.

The Panel accepted that the respondent had shown “some insight” and had eventually accepted that he had crossed a boundary, including by adding “xx” after his name when signing off a card to the student, sending her flowers and giving her lifts in his car without parental permission.

With regard to the need to protect the public, the Panel determined that there was a potential risk of future harm posed by the respondent’s conduct, that it was necessary to deter others in the profession from engaging in similar conduct and to send a reassuring message to the public that teaching is a well-regulated profession.

The Teaching Council applied to the High Court for the confirmation of the sanction decision made by the Panel on 11 March 2026. The Council also sought an order that it be at liberty to communicate the terms of the order to the regulatory bodies for teaching in Northern Ireland, England, Wales and Scotland.

The High Court

Mr Justice Barniville, President of the High Court, noted that the test in s.44(5) of the 2001 Act provides that where the relevant professional has not sought to annul the Panel’s decision, the court must confirm the decision unless it sees “good reason” not to do so.

As to the meaning of “good reason”, the court highlighted Teaching Council v CD [2026] IEHC 244, which explained that if the court were to refuse to confirm a decision, it would have to be satisfied that the decision was one that no reasonable regulatory body could make on the basis of the evidence, that there was a breach of the rules of natural and constitutional justice, or that there was a serious and significant error of fact or of law.

The court confirmed that the only potential issue was whether the decision was one which could not have been made by a reasonable professional disciplinary or regulatory body in the circumstances,  where a very serious finding of professional misconduct had been made and where the sanction was arguably too lenient.

Mr Justice Barniville concluded that “notwithstanding my misgivings and doubts as to the apparent leniency of the Panel’s 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.”

Conclusion

Accordingly, the High Court confirmed the applicant’s decision and gave liberty to the Council to communicate the terms of the order as sought to the relevant UK teaching bodies.

Teaching Council v MN [2026] IEHC 345