Teacher who deceived colleagues out of €2,000 in elaborate hoax removed from register
High Court Reporters
A teacher who deceived her colleagues out of a total of over €2,000 in an elaborate hoax has had her name removed from the register of teachers by order of the High Court.
Mr Justice David Barniville this week confirmed the sanction of the Teaching Council and also ordered that the woman be prohibited from applying to be put back on the register for another five years.
The teacher, school or victims cannot be identified by order of the court.
The Teaching Council disciplinary panel found a number of the allegations proven as fact, and they amounted to professional misconduct.
The teacher’s conduct, it stated, was disgraceful, and she had exploited her colleagues with a deception which was elaborate and carefully planned.
Opening the application from The Teaching Council, Brian Gageby BL told the court that in 2021, the teacher’s colleagues, two SNAs and another teacher were offered items at a reduced rate by this teacher, but they never got them.
One SNA sent €375 in exchange for goods, but never got them. Another SNA sent the teacher €545 while a teaching colleague had given her €1,202 for the purchase of items.
Counsel said an SNA wanted to surprise her son at Christmas with a P, S5 and the teacher offered to get it at a reduced rate. Counsel said the SNA gave money to the teacher, but the items she had ordered never materialised.
Another SNA wanted gifts for her birthday and Christmas, and the teacher told her she knew someone who worked in a tech company and a toy store.
Again, Counsel said by December 23rd of that year, the goods had not arrived, and the SNA had to borrow money to buy the items.
Counsel said the three victims did not have a lot of money, and the teacher had offered to get them items at a reduced rate.
Mr Gageby said there was an “insidious element” in that when the teacher was questioned by her colleagues who had given her money, she continued to “go deeper in the lie.”
The Teaching Council disciplinary panel found there was a very high level of professional misconduct, and the deception was elaborate and carefully planned.
It also noted there was a disturbing lack of empathy for her victims.
The panel referred to the elaborate nature of the hoax. The Teaching Council also noted that the teacher had shown skill in prolonging the deception.
The court heard that the monies had since been paid back.
Mr Justice Barniville said he was satisfied the sanction was appropriate and it was the only one which could be imposed, considering the disturbing circumstances of the case.
He noted that the teacher had received the Probation Act when a case was brought against her in the District Court in relation to the matter.
