Igweze & Ors v Dundalk Institute of Technology (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicants are three students enrolled in undergraduate degree courses at the Respondent's college, specifically in mental health nursing (two Applicants) and bioscience (one Applicant). They were suspended pending the outcome of disciplinary proceedings arising from a series of fights involving the Applicants on the college grounds on 30 and 31 January 2024, and a further altercation behind a shop in The City on the evening of 31 January 2024. None of the assaults caused injuries requiring medical attention, no complaints were made to law enforcement, and no criminal proceedings ensued.

Following investigations and interviews conducted by the Respondent's staff, separate disciplinary hearings were held on 13 February 2024 before a Disciplinary Committee, where each Applicant represented themselves. The Disciplinary Committee found each Applicant guilty of breaches of the Student Code of Conduct and imposed the sanction of permanent expulsion on 19 February 2024. The Applicants lodged appeals, represented jointly by a solicitor, who submitted written grounds of appeal on 8 March 2024.

The Appeals Committee held a hearing on 12 April 2024, considering the appeals collectively, and delivered its decision on 23 April 2024, upholding the permanent expulsion sanction. The Applicants then challenged the Appeals Committee's decision by judicial review.

Legal Issues Presented

1. What is the nature and role of the Appeals Committee in the disciplinary appeals process?
2. Was the Appeals Committee required to consider the principle of proportionality when deciding on the sanction?
3. If proportionality was required, did the Appeals Committee carry out an adequate proportionality assessment?
4. Did the Appeals Committee provide adequate reasons for its decision to impose permanent expulsion?

Arguments of the Parties

Applicants' Arguments

• The Appeals Committee failed to carry out any proportionality assessment regarding the sanction imposed.
• The Appeals Committee failed to provide adequate reasons for imposing the most severe sanction of permanent expulsion.
• The disciplinary procedures were unfair, including the absence of caution during interviews and the holding of separate disciplinary hearings, potentially causing cumulative prejudice.
• Mitigating factors included the Applicants' prior unblemished disciplinary records, generally good academic performance, reconciliation between the Applicants, and no serious injuries or police involvement.

Respondent's Arguments

• The issue of proportionality does not arise in deciding the sanction, or alternatively, proportionality was considered by the Appeals Committee.
• The reasons for imposing permanent expulsion are evident from the Appeals Committee's decision and the Disciplinary Committee's findings.
• The disciplinary procedures, including interviews conducted voluntarily without formal caution and separate disciplinary hearings, were fair and in accordance with the code of conduct.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court began by identifying four key questions: the nature and role of the Appeals Committee; whether proportionality was required to be considered; whether the Appeals Committee did so; and whether adequate reasons were provided for the sanction imposed.

First, the court held that the Appeals Committee's role was to conduct a full de novo appeal, including reassessing the merits of the sanction imposed, not merely reviewing for reasonableness. The Appeals Committee erred by applying a reasonableness standard rather than deciding whether expulsion was warranted.

Second, the court found an obligation on the Appeals Committee to consider proportionality when deciding what sanction to impose. This was supported by established case law emphasizing fairness and reasonableness in administrative sanction decisions.

Third, the court concluded the Appeals Committee failed to carry out any proportionality assessment. The Committee only addressed a narrow proportionality argument concerning disparity with sanctions against third parties who recorded and circulated videos. It did not consider mitigating factors, differing levels of culpability, or the range of available sanctions, nor did it explain why permanent expulsion was appropriate.

Fourth, the court found the reasons given by the Appeals Committee for imposing expulsion were inadequate. The Committee’s decision consisted of a single sentence upholding the Disciplinary Committee's sanction without explaining the rationale or addressing mitigating factors or the severe consequences for the Applicants, particularly the two studying mental health nursing, whose future employment prospects would likely be adversely affected.

The court emphasized the legal duty to provide adequate reasons to ensure fairness, transparency, and enable meaningful appeal or judicial review. The Appeals Committee’s failure to provide such reasons and to conduct a proportionality assessment constituted errors requiring the decision to be quashed.

Holding and Implications

The court's final ruling was to grant an order of certiorari quashing the decision of the Appeals Committee dated 23 April 2024. The matter was remitted to a newly constituted Appeals Committee for reconsideration in accordance with the correct legal principles, including conducting a full de novo appeal with proper proportionality assessment and provision of adequate reasons.

The direct effect of this decision is that the Applicants’ expulsions are set aside pending reconsideration. No new legal precedent was established beyond the reaffirmation of existing principles regarding the role of appeals committees, proportionality in sanctions, and the duty to give reasons.