Richard Bruton (Dublin North Central, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context

Question 44: To ask the Minister for Education and Science the number of schools against which the courts have made a ruling in relation to a bullying related problem; and if she will make a statement on the matter. [25796/06]

Mary Hanafin (Dún Laoghaire, Fianna Fail)
Link to this: Individually | In context

The issues raised in cases of this nature are often particular to the school and to the manner in which the Board of Management and the Principal have discharged their duties under the Education Act 1998 and Education (Welfare) Act 2000 rather than matters arising in respect of the guidelines and circulars issued by the Department of Education and Science. However, there were three recent bullying cases involving schools/students of which the Department is aware, but it should be noted that the Department was not named as a defendant in any of these cases. The first case was in the Supreme Court, Kenneth Murphy v County Wexford VEC ([2004] 4 IR 202), and that judgment was applied by the High Court in the second case, Wayne Maher (a minor) v The Board and Management of Presentation Junior School, Mullingar ([2004] 4 IR 211). There was another similar High Court case, Nicola Mulvey (a minor suing by her mother and next friend Margaret Mulvey) v Martin McDonagh ([2004] 1 IR 497).

The cases concerned the standard of care required of a school and held that the requisite standard of care is that of the "prudent parent" (i.e. the care that would be taken by a prudent parent exercising reasonable care). The schools awareness of bullying as a general issue and also of particular incidents of bullying was an important factor in each of the cases.

In the Mulvey case, the Judge accepted and adopted the definition of bullying contained in the Department's guidelines on countering bullying in primary and post primary schools. In the Murphy case, the Court held that schools are required to supervise and the degree of supervision will depend on a number of factors, including the age of the pupils, the location where they gather, the number of pupils present at any one time and the general propensity of the children at that particular school to act dangerously. Where a school is aware of potential or actual incidents of bullying, then the school is under a duty to take account of these incidents in determining the appropriate level of supervision in the school, particularly at break periods, where pupils are outside of the relatively controlled environment of the classroom.

As the Deputy will be aware, under Rule 130 of the Rules for National Schools the Board of Management has the ultimate responsibility for school discipline and that a code of discipline is formulated in consultation with the relevant educational partners, including parents. The Department of Education & Science have produced a number of guidelines and circulars on school behaviour and discipline, on countering bullying behaviour, on the supervision of mid-morning and lunchtime breaks and so forth. Further, a set of guidelines were prepared to assist schools in developing their School Plans in accordance with section 21 of the Education Act 1998. It may also be noted that section 23 of the Education (Welfare) Act 2000 places an obligation upon a school to adopt a code of behaviour in respect of the students attending the school.

The Deputy will also be aware that in litigation arising from bullying in the workplace, there are a series of industrial relations mechanisms and remedies which may be sought prior to court proceedings being initiated against a school and/or the Minister. It may also be noted that a bullying issue may be one ground amongst others in respect of which relief is sought in any proceedings and thus it is not possible to distinguish between these cases in which an applicant or plaintiff succeeds in a case but on a ground other than an alleged bullying-related matter. Further it may be noted that if a case is settled the matter of a court ruling — save other than a ruling for costs — does not arise. In certain circumstances it is possible that a case is settled at a local level, with a confidentiality agreement to protect the professional reputation of all concerned and/or the school, and once again it may be noted that the Minister would not be party to this information.

From the information to hand it would not appear that there have been any Court rulings in relation to bullying-related problems in recent years in which the Department was named as a Defendant or Respondent but if the Deputy has further information regarding an alleged problem in a particular school he may forward this for further consideration.