Judge refuses parent's application for restraining order against principal over parent's son

Gordon Deegan

A judge has rejected an application by a school parent for a civil restraining order against a primary school principal concerning the man’s son.

At Ennis District Court, Judge Alec Gabbett told the parent that his application concerning the school principal didn’t fall under the legislation concerning restraining orders.

Judge Gabbett told the man that his first port of call should be a letter to the School Board of Management concerning his complaint over the school principal.

The father said that he did not want to go down that route right now as he wanted to maintain good relations with the school.

In response, Judge Gabbett said: “I can tell one thing - if a principal gets an order like this, there won’t be good relations with the school.”

The application was being made on an ex-parte basis with only the parent present in court and the school principal would only find out about the existence of the Restraining Order when they would receive a copy of it and only then can he/she then go to court to contest it.

The sanctions for breaching a Civil Restraining Order are serious where those found in breach cab face up to one year in jail or a maximum fine of €4,000.

Judge Gabbett told the father that if he was to secure a restraining order against the school principal against his son “all it is going to do is that the School Principal will not be able to go near your son”.

He said: "I don’t think that is a good idea as the school Principal may need to go near your son. The School Principal might be the first responder, and if your son had a medical episode and the school Principal was the only person in the room, and by court order they are not allowed to go near your son, it could lead to your son dying, and that would be a dreadful thing.”

After reading out the man’s grounds for his restraining order against the school principal, Judge Gabbett told the man that “the substance of your complaint is that the School Principal didn’t treat your child appropriately during a medical episode and moved him inappropriately when they shouldn’t have”.

Judge Gabbett told the parent that “if your complaint is viable and legitimate, and certainly it has all the hallmarks of being legitimate, someone needs to be told that the school is not adopting the correct procedures”.

Judge Gabbett told the parent that the legislation concerning Restraining Orders is quite specific, where he can get an order if he fears that violence will be used against the applicant or a connected person.

Judge Gabbett said that there has to be serious alarm or distress on the parent’s part at a substantial adverse impact and “these are the two aspects I am struggling with and I don’t believe that this application fits within the act and this particular legislation”.

Judge Gabbett said that he was refusing the application and told the man to write to the school Board of Management to outline his concerns.

Judge Gabbett said that the €80 paid in stamp duty by the man to the Courts Service to seek a restraining order be returned to the man.

Civil restraining orders were introduced in the Criminal Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2023 as a measure for people seeking protection.

The District Court may issue an order to prevent the respondent from violence or threats, stalking, harassing or approaching the applicant's home, work, or school. It can run for up to five years but may be shorter.