Lawyers for a former principal from the midlands who received a prison sentence for stealing over €100,000 from his school have claimed he would suffer "double punishment" if the Teaching Council were to suspend him or strike him off the register of teachers.
A fitness-to-teach inquiry heard calls on behalf of the teacher that the appropriate sanction would be a censure with conditions attached to his continued registration including a requirement not to take up any school post in the future that involved access to finance.
An inquiry panel of the Teaching Council had earlier rejected an application to consider using its powers to accept an undertaking by the teacher about his future conduct and a consent to being censured that would allow the hearing to be brought to a conclusion.
The teacher, who is in his early 40s, was convicted on 15 sample counts of 381 alleged incidents of theft on dates between 2017 and 2019 at a primary school where he was principal.
The offences arose from his use of the school's credit card and cheques on which he had forged the name of the chairperson of the school’s board of management.
He was sentenced by a court to six years in prison with the final four-and-a-half years suspended on condition that any outstanding stolen money be repaid over three years in annual instalments of €20,000.
Teacher in remission from addiction, inquiry told
The teacher, who now works at a different school in the east of Ireland, has repaid €71,000 to date and has a revised agreement in place to repay the remainder.
The inquiry heard that the teacher, who is supported by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland, had been in remission from an addiction which should be recognised as a form of disability under employment legislation.
The name of the teacher as well as the names of his current and former schools cannot be published as a result of extensive reporting restrictions imposed by the inquiry panel.
The three-person panel chaired by Mary Magner also directed that the nature of the teacher’s addiction and the name of the sentencing judge and the date of the teacher’s conviction cannot be identified.
Ms Magner told a resumed hearing of the inquiry on Thursday that the panel had made a finding that the teacher had been convicted at a Circuit Court within the State of an offence triable on indictment.
She said the panel had also concluded that this finding does affect his fitness to teach.
'He had done his time'
In a submission on sanction, counsel for the teacher, Cathy Maguire SC, urged the panel to recognise that no allegation or finding of professional misconduct had been made against him.
Ms Maguire pointed out that there had similarly been no allegation or finding that he was medically unfit to teach.
Although the panel had twice rejected the teacher’s application to provide an undertaking about his future conduct, Ms Maguire said it was open to them to impose such undertakings as conditions on his continuing registration.
She claimed the appropriate sanction should be nothing more than a censure with a number of suggested conditions which included a restriction on taking any teaching role that involved access to finance.
Ms Maguire said the teacher accepted he was convicted of a serious offence.
"He had done his time and paid his debt to society," she added.
The inquiry heard that the teacher had paid a price for his wrongdoing as he had found it difficult to secure employment after his release from prison.
"He suffered a de facto suspension for an extensive period," Ms Maguire observed.
She also claimed he would suffer a double punishment if any more serious sanction than censure was imposed on him.
Ms Maguire said the teacher did not present such a risk that he should be either suspended or have his registration cancelled which would also affect his ability to continue to make repayments to his former school.
She claimed such a punishment would be harsh which would also have consequences for both his past and current schools as well as his family.
She argued that a more serious sanction would not promote confidence in the teaching profession as it would represent "over-regulation" as well as being a failure to recognise that the teacher had suffered from a disability.
As a regulatory body, the barrister said the Teaching Council also had a duty under the Employment Equality Act to provide reasonable accommodation to someone with a disability to access the profession.
Ms Maguire said the panel should not take into account that the teacher had not complied with the schedule of repayments to his former school as it was not the subject of any separate allegation against him.
She urged the panel to also consider that there were "far more egregious offences" than the one for which the teacher had been convicted.
Counsel reminded the panel that they had heard unchallenged medical evidence that the teacher had suffered a disorder since 2007, while they had also heard from his sister how his family had put in place support and structures to ensure there would be no relapse.
Censure would be 'disproportionately lenient'
However, counsel for the Teaching Council, Eoghan O’Sullivan BL, argued that the appropriate sanction should be suspension with conditions and that a censure would be "disproportionately lenient".
Mr O’Sullivan claimed the former principal had engaged in very serious offending which involved dishonesty and a breach of trust that he described as "truly egregious".
He pointed out the offending was not an isolated incident but had lasted over two years, which had deprived his former school of funding.
Mr O’Sullivan said the teacher’s actions were "intentional, deliberate and premeditated."
Were it not for his background illness, he claimed the regulatory body would have been seeking the cancellation of the teacher’s name from the register as his conduct was "fundamentally incompatible" with remaining a registered teacher.
Mr O’Sullivan questioned what message would be sent out to the teaching profession if the former principal’s wrongdoing was marked by a censure.
He suggested that it would not effectively deter other teachers from engaging in similar conduct.
The barrister said the primary function of sanctions was to protect the public, while it was also important to promote public confidence in the profession and the regulation of teachers.
Mr O’Sulivan also noted that the teacher had not fully complied with the court’s required schedule for repaying money to his former school.
While he was not suggesting such non-compliance was an aggravating factor, he said it was a relevant consideration for the inquiry panel.
Mr O’Sullivan observed that there was no evidence that the teacher would lose his current post if he was to receive a suspension.
The hearing was adjourned with the panel to deliver its ruling on sanction on a future date.
