A teacher who admitted a “once-off” sexual encounter with a former student has failed in an attempt to block phone evidence obtained by a former partner being used in a fitness-to-teach inquiry.
The teacher, who cannot be identified due to court orders, submitted that the evidence deemed admissible by a Teaching Council disciplinary committee panel was unlawfully garnered from a Snapchat social media account without consent.
The teacher is the subject of an ongoing inquiry into fitness to practise after allegations were raised by their ex-partner about a relationship between the teacher and a former student, including alleged social media communications between the pair.
The contact is alleged to have occurred prior to, and after, the student completed the Leaving Certificate. The teacher accepted that there had been a “once-off” sexual encounter between the two after the completion of the Leaving Cert, but denied any regular contact with the student.
In relation to screenshots taken by the ex-partner of alleged social media contact between the teacher and the former student, the applicant suggested that these could have been sent from a fake account and submitted that they never had any contact with the third party on the social media platform.
The teacher submitted that there was no proof of identity of who owned the social media account and that the teacher’s name did not appear anywhere in the screenshots.
The allegations led to the teacher leaving employment at a particular school, but the applicant submitted there was not an application from the Teaching Council for an order suspending teaching registration on the grounds that it was in the public interest.
The applicant sought to quash the June 2022 decision by the disciplinary panel to permit the use of the screenshots at the fitness-to-practise inquiry, which is being held under part 5 of the Teaching Council Act, 2001.
The teacher’s judicial review case was brought against the panel of the disciplinary committee of the Teaching Council and the director of the Teaching Council.
In a judgment published on Wednesday, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley denied the judicial review application to have the evidence ruled inadmissible.
Mr Justice Bradley said the applicant alleged the screenshots taken from the phone were “unlawfully obtained” by the applicant’s former partner and were in breach of constitutional rights and that the director of the panel had no right to retain or seek the “unlawful evidence” to put it before the panel.
Mr Justice Bradley said he did not believe the applicant was entitled to an order quashing the June 2022 decision permitting the admission of the screenshots.
Mr Justice Bradley said the panel enjoyed “wide-ranging powers to compel and receive evidence” under the relevant legislation and had “powers, rights and privileges vested in the High Court in respect of the enforcement and compellability of witnesses and the production of documents”.
“I believe that the reliefs sought at this juncture and by way of an application for judicial review is contrary to the intention of the Oireachtas in prescribing how these matters should be addressed,” said the judge.
Mr Justice Bradley said that no fitness hearing had taken place at this juncture, no findings had been made and no sanction had been contemplated.
“The granting of a remedy at this juncture, arguably, has the effect of circumventing a process prescribed by statute… a consequence the superior courts have sought to avoid,” said the judge.
The judge noted the respondent’s submission that the actions of the applicant’s former partner did “not contaminate the probative value of the evidence”.
Citing case law, Mr Justice Bradley said the Court of Appeal had previously made it “clear” that there was no rule of automatic exclusion of evidence “unlawfully procured” by a third party, which was separate to the State or its agents.
“Therefore, the exclusionary rule does not automatically apply to private or third-party illegality,” said Mr Justice Bradley.
Mr Justice Bradley said the applicant was incorrect in contending that the application of the exclusionary rule would result in the “inevitable exclusion” of the screenshots.
“As a matter of general principle, the raison d’etre for the exclusionary rule has higher constitutional purposes, which includes the integrity of the administration of justice,” said Mr Justice Bradley in refusing the application.
