In a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, the court considered a case against a teacher, with a long career, who was facing disciplinary proceedings following complaints concerning his social media posts which were potentially harmful under the Teaching Council Act 2001 (as amended) (2001 Act). The court ultimately found that a respondent who seeks to challenge a decision of a committee should not wait for the conclusion of the overall process; any challenge should be brought promptly once the committee issues its interim decision.
In Gearóid Johnson .v. The Teaching Council [2026] IECA 13 the Court of Appeal reviewed a High Court judgment refusing Mr Johnson’s orders for discovery, replies to particulars and an order striking out the statement of opposition filed on behalf of the Teaching Council (Council).
The court heard that the complaints originated from colleagues and a student, concerning Mr Johnson’s social media activity and a classroom comment about the 2015 Marriage Referendum. Following an investigation, Mr Johnson’s employment was terminated and the matter was referred to the Council for disciplinary action.
In considering the complaint, the Council’s Investigating Committee (Committee) considered whether they had jurisdiction to investigate the complaint, as some conduct predated the commencement of Part V of the 2001 Act (25 July 2016). Under s.42(1B), jurisdiction exists only for conduct that would have constituted a criminal offence at the time and posed a risk of harm to children or vulnerable persons. Having considered the jurisdictional point, on 29 June 2021, the Committee was satisfied that they had jurisdiction to hear the complaint and made a decision on this point.
The Committee went on to consider the social media posts and decided that 10 of 12 social media posts met the threshold and referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee, finding a prima facie case for further action.
Following the Committee’s findings, Mr Johnson sought judicial review, aiming to quash the decision to refer his case to the Disciplinary Committee, and sought discovery and further particulars regarding the Committee’s interpretation of “harm” and the conduct under investigation. The High Court refused the relief sought by Mr Johnson, finding that he had not challenged the Committee’s earlier jurisdictional decision (29 June 2021), only the referral decision (24 January 2022), and that the documents sought related only to the unchallenged earlier decision.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s ruling, confirming that:
- The Investigating Committee’s jurisdictional decision of 29 June 2021 was a standalone, reviewable decision.
- Mr Johnson failed to challenge that decision at the appropriate time.
- A referral to the Disciplinary Committee is not a finding of misconduct but simply an indication that there is a case to answer.
The judgment emphasises the importance of distinguishing between the investigative and disciplinary stages and ensuring that judicial review challenges are directed at the correct decision.
Key takeaways from the judgment:
- Jurisdictional findings by regulatory committees are often standalone, reviewable decisions and must be challenged promptly.
- Later procedural steps (such as referrals) cannot be used to indirectly challenge earlier unchallenged decisions.
- Referrals to disciplinary bodies are procedural and do not imply guilt, and
- Careful analysis is required at each stage of a regulatory investigation to identify which decisions warrant review.
