[ad_1]
An assistant principal teacher received an order from the Superior Court to stop an Ombudsman’s investigation into complaints about the handling of bullying in a second-level school and other complaints from a student’s parents.
The teacher claims that the Ombudsman did not respond to requests for complete information about the accusations and whether she could be the subject of the investigation and any possible adverse findings of the investigation.
Today, Judge Charles Meenan granted permission to file a judicial review and an order to suspend the investigation pending the determination of the procedures following a request for one-sided representation by John Kennedy BL, for the teacher.
The judge said he will effectively stop the investigation, which is due to begin on Monday, but that order was subject to allowing the Ombudsman to have the freedom to request 48 hours in advance of the court to lift or vary the suspension.
Kennedy told the judge that it will be argued that there is a separate process for investigating teachers under the Teaching Council Act, and therefore this process was statutory flawed. If a derivative report is prepared, it could have serious consequences for his client’s career stemming from a flawed process, the attorney said.
Kennedy said that despite requests to the defendant for full details of the complaint, only an excerpt from the parents’ complaint had been provided.
These included the lack of child protection data in relation to the student at the upper school management level and the failure to adequately address persistent bullying. There were also complaints about insufficient student support for the student’s academic and physical difficulties, as well as an alleged lack of pastoral care.
The teacher, who is also the head of the year, in her process, says that the Ombudsman acted against fair procedures and natural justice by making the investigation continue.
She also says that the defendant has exceeded any power under the Children’s Ombudsman Act of 2002 as to whether a mandatory requirement for a preliminary examination of complaints was met.
Among the orders and statements he requested were an order to be served with a copy of the full complaint and a statement that the continuation of the investigation would constitute a violation of constitutional rights.
The case returns to court in December.
[ad_2]