Duty of Proportionality and Reasoned Decisions in Student Disciplinary Appeals

Introduction

This commentary examines the High Court’s decision in Igweze & Ors v Dundalk Institute of Technology ([2025] IEHC 232). Three undergraduate students—two studying mental health nursing and one studying bioscience—were permanently expelled by their college’s Disciplinary Committee for a series of fighting incidents on campus and in Dundalk town. They appealed to the Institute’s Appeals Committee, challenging (1) the absence of a proportionality assessment in choosing the sanction and (2) the lack of adequate reasons for imposing permanent expulsion. The High Court judge, Mr Justice Barr, quashed the Appeals Committee’s decision, establishing important guidance on the scope of de novo appeals, the requirement of proportionality in sanctions, and the duty to furnish clear reasons.

Summary of the Judgment

The High Court first held that the Institute’s disciplinary appeals procedure created a full de novo appeal, not merely a review of the disciplinary body’s reasonableness. It then identified two principal legal errors by the Appeals Committee:

They applied a “reasonableness” test, treating the appeal as a supervisory review rather than making their own independent assessment of the appropriate sanction.
They failed entirely to conduct a proportionality analysis—balancing aggravating and mitigating factors and weighing the full range of available sanctions—and they gave no meaningful reasons for selecting permanent expulsion.

Because the Appeals Committee did not fulfill its duties to conduct an independent proportionality assessment and to explain its conclusion, the High Court granted certiorari, quashed the decision dated 23 April 2024, and remitted the matter for rehearing before a newly constituted Appeals Committee.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

Board of Management of St Molaga’s NS v Secretary General of the Department of Education ([2011] 1 IR 362): Established that an appeal under a similar statutory scheme is a full de novo hearing with power to substitute its own judgment.
City of Waterford VEC v Secretary General ([2011] IEHC 278): Clarified that judicial review of administrative decisions is supervisory; the court cannot usurp fact-finding powers but must set aside only if decisions are manifestly unreasonable.
Radio Limerick One Ltd v Independent Radio and Television Commissioners ([1997] 2 IR 29): Recognised that manifest unreasonableness includes sanctions so disproportionate that they “fly in the face of fundamental reason and common sense.”
Meadows v Minister for Justice ([2010] 2 IR 701): Confirmed that proportionality is an element of legal reasonableness in administrative decisions.
Kelly v Board of Management of St Joseph’s NS ([2013] IEHC 392): Reiterated the duty to consider alternative, less severe sanctions and the consequences of the chosen penalty.
Connelly v An Bord Pleanála ([2021] 2 IR 752) and Baltz v An Bord Pleanála ([2019] IESC 90): Defined the duty to give adequate reasons, enabling affected parties and reviewing courts to understand and evaluate decisions.

Legal Reasoning

The court’s reasoning unfolded in four key steps:

Nature of the Appeal: The code of conduct granted the Appeals Committee de novo power to hear the student’s case, to evaluate evidence afresh, and to impose or vary sanctions—aligning with St Molaga’s precedent.
Requirement of Proportionality: Drawing on Radio Limerick One, Meadows and Kelly, the court held that any decision-maker selecting from a range of disciplinary measures must balance aggravating factors (e.g., premeditated violence) against mitigating factors (e.g., unblemished disciplinary history, genuine remorse), and must consider whether a lesser or combined sanction would achieve appropriate deterrence, rehabilitation, and campus safety.
Failure to Apply the Proper Test: Instead of conducting its own proportionality assessment, the Appeals Committee asked only whether the original decision was “reasonable,” effectively rubber-stamping expulsion without independent analysis.
Duty to Give Adequate Reasons: Consistent with Connelly and Baltz, the court emphasised that the Appeals Committee’s reasons must show which mitigating and aggravating factors were weighed, why permanent expulsion was deemed necessary, and how lesser penalties had been considered and rejected. A one-sentence endorsement of the prior decision was manifestly insufficient.

Impact

This judgment cements three critical principles for educational disciplinary law:

Student appeals bodies must conduct a full de novo examination of both facts and sanction, not merely rubber-stamp lower-tribunal outcomes.
Decision-makers must explicitly engage in proportionality analysis—balancing all relevant factors and exploring the spectrum of penalties—before imposing severe sanctions like expulsion.
Courts will require clear, reasoned decisions that disclose how conclusions were reached, enhancing transparency, fairness, and the ability to litigate or appeal effectively.

Going forward, colleges and universities in Ireland will need to revise their disciplinary codes and training to ensure these duties are met, reducing the risk of successful judicial challenges.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Full De Novo Appeal: An appeal in which the tribunal hears the entire case anew—fact-finding and sanctioning—rather than deferring to the original decision-maker’s judgment.
Proportionality: The requirement that a chosen penalty closely match the misconduct’s seriousness, having regard to all aggravating and mitigating circumstances and the range of possible sanctions.
Adequate Reasons: The obligation to provide enough explanation so that the affected individual and any reviewing court understand which factors were considered, why certain evidence was preferred, and how the final outcome was reached.
Manifest Unreasonableness: A ground of judicial review where a decision is so out of proportion to the facts or rights at stake that it defies common sense.

Conclusion

The High Court’s ruling in Igweze & Ors v Dundalk Institute of Technology establishes a new benchmark for fairness in student disciplinary appeals. It requires that appeal bodies:

Conduct a full, de novo hearing on both the merits and the sanction.
Undertake a clear proportionality analysis—evaluating aggravating and mitigating factors and the full range of sanctions.
Give reasoned decisions that explain the choice of penalty, especially when imposing the most severe sanction of expulsion.

These principles will guide colleges, students, and courts in ensuring disciplinary processes are transparent, fair, and legally sound.