School law

Victor

A school pupil is late for school and scheduled for detention later that day. The pupil objects to the punishment as it was the fault of a parent. Despite prima facie eveidence of a parent's fault, this complaint is rejected and the pupil is threatened with futher disciplinary measures.

Consider the case in terms of natural justice and under contract law. Consider the alternatives if the pupil is (a) under 18 (b) over 18 (c) in a fee paying school (d) in a non-fee paying school.

johnnyskeleton

Article 40 inquiry. Let's hope he's a fee-paying student and can afford senior counsel.

From a natural law point of view, the school is entitled to have regulatory rules - if you want to go to school you have to abide by the punctuality rule. I don't think there is anything inconsistent in punishing someone for the breach of these rules, provided that the student was aware of the possible consequences of being late.

From a contract law point of view, it really depends on what the contract says. Obviously if they do not have rules in relation to detention they cannot lawfully detain the student (hence the article 40 and a potential action in false imprisonment).

I don't think the alternatives make any difference, other than someone under 18 can't enter into a contract.

In any event, aren't you a little long in the tooth to be getting detention?

Victor

This is the "Legal Discussion" board, are you suggesting I'd seek advice?

johnnyskeleton

Ok, well if it was national school, the decision to punish the child could be judicially reviewed on the basis that he did not get a fair hearing.

Tom Young

This is just too funny! JS you've outdone yourself. Victor, is it advice or help you need to seek? There is a fine line .............

Victor wrote: »

A school pupil is late for school and scheduled for detention later that day. The pupil objects to the punishment as it was the fault of a parent. Despite prima facie eveidence of a parent's fault, this complaint is rejected and the pupil is threatened with futher disciplinary measures.

Consider the case in terms of natural justice and under contract law. Consider the alternatives if the pupil is (a) under 18 (b) over 18 (c) in a fee paying school (d) in a non-fee paying school.

Contract law:

(a) child is a minor and the parents are under constructive notice of school policies (contract law), public/private school etc.;
(b) child remains dependant until such time as child vacates full time education (23 in Irish law) or moves from family home, see (a);
(c) makes matter possibly more restrictive depending on the elected religious denomination of the sanitarium (not bitter, I swear) chosen by the parents or guardians ;
(d) per (a) and (b).

In repsect of your request for a natural law/justice review, we could go as far back as earliest written reference Sophocles/Antigone- 441BC? or we could perhaps bring it into more common territory, or perhaps we could select some Motesque-esque jibes: that natural law was or potentially is antecedent to all positive laws and recognisable by human intelligence, maybe linked with the laws of God?

What is Natural Justice? - Can you tell me please?

Basically, ask why the child was detained for detention in the first instance?

This happens on a daily basis, e.g., child late for school, child gets detention, parents fault. So what?

Victor

It is a purely hypothetical question. Imagine a lecturer posing it to students.

johnfás

It's a condition of your attendence at a particular school. Most secondary schools will forward you a copy of their regulations prior the commencement of each academic year. Breach of a regulation leads to the coercion outlined in the school regulations. The parents agree to the regulations on behalf of their minor children.

Our man in Havana

What in the event of an adult pupil (over 18, there would be a fair few 6th year pupils that are over 18)doing the leaving cert. Could they take a case against the school for unlawful imprisonment if given detention?

Would a contract entered into by the parents of a minor be voided upon them turning 18?

johnnyskeleton

Victor wrote: »

It is a purely hypothetical question. Imagine a lecturer posing it to students.

A lecturer in Administrative law/Judicial Review?

Is the main bone of contention the right of the school to detain the child, or is it the breach of fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice in the disciplinary hearing?

Thirdfox

Or even a tort lecturer - false imprisonment? I remember our tort lecturer posing hypothetical questions along the same lines.

Our man in Havana

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is the main bone of contention the right of the school to detain the child, or is it the breach of fair procedures and natural and constitutional justice in the disciplinary hearing?

I would say both. In the case of a pupil over 18 I would say that it would amount to unlawful imprisonment.

I would doubt in most schools you would get a fair hearing. Such punishments are often decided upon unilaterally by one teacher alone.

Planxty

Bond-007 wrote: »

Would a contract entered into by the parents of a minor be voided upon them turning 18?

Not automatically. The child, upon turning 18, would need to seek to exit the contract as early as possible. If he doesn't object to it then the contract should still be valid

EdgarAllenPoo

Why is that whenever someone asks a genuine hypothetical question on this forum they're axxused of seeking legal advice. There may be a fine line but on first reading of the original post it seemed like a genuine hypothetical question. Are people around here that afraid of getting sued?

sh_o

Section 28 of the education act, 1998 and the ministers direction in the matter.... - does the student (if over 18) or their parent not have a direct appeal to the board of directors?
Would that come into play in the form of natural justice/ alternative remedy prior to seeking JR?

johnnyskeleton

GDM wrote: »

Why is that whenever someone asks a genuine hypothetical question on this forum they're axxused of seeking legal advice. There may be a fine line but on first reading of the original post it seemed like a genuine hypothetical question. Are people around here that afraid of getting sued?

Who accused who of seeking legal advice? We were just giving Victor a gentle jibing. I think he might need to narrow down his question though, as there are lots and lots of different aspects to it (as you can see, everyone has a different take).

I don't think anyone is really afraid of gettin sued. Notwitstanding the difficulties of actually finding who posted in this forum, any comments made are covered by Heldly Byrne on two fronts:

1. No-one here is holding themselves out as an expert, we're all passionate amateurs as they say. I would be amazed if people actually thought that real life lawyers were giving away free advice (or worse discussing each other's cases) in a public forum.

2. Even if they were holding themselves out as an expert, they are covered by the disclaimer contained in the charter (which every poster should in theory have read before posting).

There isn't a court in the world that would attribute liability to a poster on boards*, no matter how spurious, misleading or wildly inaccurate the "advice" given is.

Nor is there much of a prospect of boards.ie being sued for similar reasons.

The reason why legal advice is not given is because it says so in the charter in big friendly letters.

Plus, if someone is too stupid to dress up a request for advice as a hypothetical scenario or a general question, they don't deserve an answer.

*Maybe Texas

Tom Young

I think the issue of 18 years is void, as I mention above, dependant age is actually up to 23 .....technically college age unless we had some mensa type.

GDM not sure I understand your point? At no time was legal advice sought above? There are some posters, generally with a post count amounting to 1,2,3,4 etc. who like to put valid questions and seek legal advice, then we have the other type of poster who places peoples names on the site .....this is no court room and yes, there is a valid risk of suit as we've seen with MCD.

Our man in Havana

I don't follow Tom, if a person is deemed to be an adult at 18 and can form contracts and make their own decisions in life. I don't see where dependance comes into it tbh.

I would be of the opinion that a school could not detain a 18+ student for some minor breach of rules.

Tom Young

Bond-007 wrote: »

I don't follow Tom, if a person is deemed to be an adult at 18 and can form contracts and make their own decisions in life. I don't see where dependance comes into it tbh.

I would be of the opinion that a school could not detain a 18+ student for some minor breach of rules.

I am trying to find the statutory basis, but one exists. My understanding is that children over 18 and under 23 years remain dependent in terms of financial status and family. Of course they can take their own actions and are legally recognised under the age of majority act etc.

Yeah http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1996/en/act/pub/0033/print.html Family Law Divorce Act 1996.

Gobán Saor

Bond-007 wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that a school could not detain a 18+ student for some minor breach of rules.

No, but a school could make it a condition of continued attendance that a period of detention be observed. On the basis that the student is voluntarily complying with the discipline system.

Our man in Havana

They would never try that in a 3rd level college where people are treated like adults.

They tried to detain an 18+ student in my old secondary school for mitching, the student told the principal he would sue them as he had a right as an adult to choose if he wanted to attend classes or not. The result was they never tried it again with any adult student.

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

What is Natural Justice? - Can you tell me please?

Meaning of “natural justice”,– Audi Alteram Partem “fair procedures” and “constitutional justice” (Article 40.3)
Gwynn Morgan and Hogan state:
“The audi alteram partem rule embraces two types of obligation First, the person to be affected by the decision must have notice of it, that is, he must be alerted to it and be given details. Secondly, he must be allowed appropriate facilities to make the best possible case in reply.”

Natural justice
A word used to refer to situations where audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) and nemo judex in parte sua (no person may judge their own case) apply. The principles of natural justice were derived from the Romans who believed that some legal principles were "natural" or self-evident and did not require a statutory basis. These two basic legal safeguards govern all decisions by judges or government officials when they take quasi-judicial or judicial decisions