Principal suspended by Teaching Council for stealing over €100,00 from school

Seán McCárthaigh

A teacher who was jailed for stealing over €100,000 from the school where he was a principal has been suspended by his regulatory body from working as a teacher for a period of one month.

An inquiry panel of the Teaching Council imposed the sanction on the teacher after a fitness-to-teach inquiry found that he had been convicted by a Circuit Court of an offence triable on indictment, which also impacted on his fitness to teach.

Announcing details of the sanction on Wednesday, the inquiry chairperson, Mary Magner, said the panel was also censuring the teacher as well as imposing certain conditions on the retention of his registration including that he does not take up any teaching role in future that would involve access to money or finance.

The former principal must also attend a consultant psychiatrist to obtain a medical report to demonstrate his continuing recovery from an addiction, a copy of which has to be provided to the Teaching Council within 15 months.

He is also required to inform any employer or prospective employer of such conditions.

Ms Magner said the sanction was “necessary, appropriate, proportionate and fair.”

The teacher, who is in his early 40s, was convicted of numerous sample counts of theft over a two-year period at a school in the midlands where he was principal.

The offences arose from his use of the school’s credit card and cheques on which he had forged the name of the chairperson of the school’s board of management.

He was sentenced to 18 months in prison with a further period suspended on condition that any outstanding stolen money be repaid over three years.

The teacher, who now works at a different school in the east of Ireland, has repaid €71,000 to date and has a revised agreement in place to repay the remainder in 72 instalments spread over three years.

The inquiry heard that the teacher, who is supported by the Teachers’ Union of Ireland, had been in remission from an addiction which should be recognised as a form of disability under employment legislation.

The name of the teacher as well as the names of his current and former schools and the nature of his addiction cannot be published as part of extensive reporting restrictions imposed by the three-person inquiry panel.

Ms Magner said the findings against the teacher were “very serious”, although the panel accepted there are “more egregious” types of conduct such as physical and sexual abuse of a student.

She said the teacher’s actions were dishonest and deprived the school of money which had been set aside for a new school building and astro pitch.

Ms Magner said an argument by the teacher’s legal representatives that it was more serious for a solicitor to steal funds than a teacher was “without merit.”

She observed the former principal had breached the trust of students, staff and the board of management by stealing from the school.

Ms Magner said the “premeditated and deliberate” offending lasted over a two-year period which showed it was “a pattern and not confined to one or even a few incidences.”

The inquiry chairperson said the teacher’s conduct was incompatible with teaching, but for several mitigating factor,s including that he was suffering from a disability at the time.

She also noted the tragic circumstances of the death of one of his relatives.

Ms Magner acknowledged the admissions made by the teacher as well as his apology and expression of remorse which the panel accepted were genuine.

She observed that he had also demonstrated “real and in-depth insight” into how his actions had brought the profession into disrepute as well as actively undertaking efforts at remediation and rehabilitation.

The panel said it had also taken into account that the former principal was unable to work while in prison and had applied for 75 jobs and attended 14 interviews before securing a new teaching post.

It also noted he was described as “an excellent teacher” with no previous disciplinary history.

Ms Magner said the panel did not agree with a submission by the teacher’s lawyers that the imposition of a period of suspension would represent “over-regulation.”

She said the sanction would send a message to other teachers that stealing “will not go without severe punishment.”

Ms Magner said the panel acknowledged that the teacher’s suspension might discommode his current school and its pupils but noted it was for a limited period.

She also accepted that it might have “unwanted consequences” for his family but said the panel did not accept there was any risk that the suspension placed his current job at risk.

Counsel for the teacher, Cathy Maguire SC, had previously argued that he would suffer “double punishment” if the Teaching Council were to suspend him or strike him off the register.

“He has done his time and paid his debt to society,” said Ms Maguire.

The inquiry panel had earlier last year twice refused an application by Ms Maguire to use its powers to bring the hearing to a conclusion by accepting an undertaking by the teacher about his future conduct and a consent to being censured.

The inquiry heard that the teacher had suffered a disorder since 2007, while his sister gave evidence that his family had put in place support and structures to ensure that there would be no relapse of his offending.

Counsel for the Teaching Council, Eoghan O’Sullivan BL, had argued that the appropriate sanction should be suspension with conditions as a censure would be “disproportionately lenient.”

Mr O’Sullivan observed that there was no evidence that the teacher would lose his current post if he was to receive a suspension.

At the conclusion of the sanction hearing, the teacher’s counsel, Louise Beirne BL, said they would “consider the outcome and next steps.”