Presentation to the Board of Governors of Drumragh I.C. Tuesday, 23 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1

Presentation to the Board of Governors of Drumragh I.C.

Tuesday, 23rd September 2014

2

Aims and Objectives

• To explain briefly the role of the PILS Project
• To discuss the key elements of the judgment
• To discuss potential impact for the school and the

integrated movement

 To discuss potential impact on DE and ELBs

3

The PILS Project

 Works with members to build their capacity to use

public interest litigation (PIL)

 Provides legal and financial support to our members

for public interest cases

 Raises general awareness of PIL and tries to break

down barriers to it

4

In the Matter of an Application by Drumragh Integrated College for Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 69

• Development Proposal – March 2012
• Refusal of the DP – October 2012
• Pro bono legal opinion – December 2012
• Pre-Action Correspondence – January 2013
• JR Papers lodged – June 2013

5

In the Matter of an Application by Drumragh Integrated College for Judicial Review [2014] NIQB 69

 Leave hearing – 07/10/2013  DE say they will ‘re-take’ decision – 02/10/13  Decision made to continue with the case – on public

interest grounds

 Leave granted and case heard Jan – Mar 2014

6

Applicant’s Arguments

 DE failed to even consider their statutory duty –

Article 64 Education (NI) Order 1989

 Duty has practical consequences and legislative

• significance. In real terms, [DE] may be required to

make decisions in favour of integrated education proposals they would not have done for schools within the controlled and maintained sectors.

 Taking positive steps or removing obstacles  The duty only applies to ‘integrated schools’

7

Applicant’s Arguments

 Needs Model and Area Plans do not enshrine Article

64 duty

 No agreement on how plans would accommodate

changes if DP was approved

 WELB area plan did not cater for future needs of

integrated sector – DE recognised this

8

DE’s Concessions

 Accepted duty has practical consequences and

legislative significance

 Includes taking positive steps or removing obstacles  Referred to the Minister’s guidance of 19/12/2013  This guidance never seen by integrated movement

9

DE’s Arguments

 Article 64 does not require positive bias or

discrimination

 Art. 64 does not require action ref; ‘integrated sector’  Art. 64 only relates to ‘education together at school

• f Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils’.

 Art. 64 not a primary factor – but one of many

10

DE’s Arguments

 Denied growth of integrated schools in hands of

‘competitor schools’

 When considering proposals in the future, consent

• f other schools not a prerequisite ref; DPs

 For ELBs and management authorities to manage

impact of approval of a DP

 Lack of an agreement in area plan does not preclude

proposals being brought forward in any sector

11

The Judgment

• Key paragraphs – 50 to 60 inclusive
• 1. Clarification of to whom Art. 64 duty is
• wed
• ‘Integrated Education is a standalone concept’

[para. 50]

• ‘Integrated Education must be the service of

imparting knowledge to young people from all backgrounds as equals’ [para. 51]

12

The Judgment

• A school which has a predominantly catholic or

predominantly protestant ethos which is reflected through the religious events celebrated, the religious symbolism present throughout the school, the manner of worship engaged in at the school cannot be said to be delivering integrated education (i.e. serving members of different religious groups equally) [para. 52]

13

The Judgment

• ‘[This is] because, as part of its constitution as an

institution it is fundamentally oriented to one religious cannon over another. Therefore, the minority faith in any denominational school is not receiving ‘equal’ exposure to its faith as the majority faith’ [para. 52]

• ‘As against this, an integrated school strives to

achieve an equal balance in relation to worship, celebration and exposure to both faiths’ [para. 53]

14

The Judgment

• ‘For these reasons it must be the case that the

integrated education referred to in the article is education that is integrated throughout and not education that is delivered by a partisan board’ [para. 53]

15

The Judgment

• 2. The Needs Model and Area Plans
• Paras. 56 and 57 – excellent summary of the needs

model

• Para. 57 – current demand/ current levels
• ‘The needs model assumes no growth in the

integrated sector’ [para. 58]

16

The Judgment

• ‘ The needs model itself is just an analytical tool,

but the results of the analysis will feed into a plan which will underscore all strategic decisions in relation to the provision of education in a given area’ [para. 59]

• ‘It is intended that all dynamic, day to day

decisions about educational provision in the area will be assessed against this comparatively static long range plan’ [para. 59]

17

The Judgment

• ‘It will be easier for dynamic decisions which are

in line with the long range plan (i.e. where sectoral take up remains proportionately the same) to be approved than dynamic decisions which are out

• f line with the long range plan (i.e. growth of one

sector has not been projected).’ [para. 59]

18

The Judgment

• ‘It is by no means the case that these kinds of

decisions will be impossible, but there will be an additional friction impeding their progress as compared to decisions in line with the long term plan.’ [para. 59]

• ‘The creation of an additional difficulty is

the opposite of encouraging and facilitating [para. 59]

19

The Judgment

• ‘Using an analytical tool to plan for an area is of

course acceptable and necessary, however the inflexibility of the projections used will have the effect of making it difficult to accommodate the A64 duty in future day to day decisions.’ [para. 60]

• ‘The department needs to be alive to the A64

duty at all levels, including the strategic

• ne.’ [para. 60]

20

Impact on Drumragh I.C.

• DE agreed to ‘re-take’ decision on DP so Court

would not make a ruling on that point

• Case proceeded on the public interest argument
• DE awaited judgment before finalising ‘re-taking’
• DE difficult position – agreed to do what it had

never done before and didn’t want challenged again

21

Impact on Drumragh I.C.

• Big difference for Drumragh and the DP – the

rulings on Article 64; Needs Model and; Area Plans.

• DE’s concessions also important
• Judgment should strengthen the case for the DP
• The flaw in the DP process only occurred when it

was considered by DE – when it failed to take any account of Article 64.

22

Impact on Integrated Movement

• Engagement at all levels – strategic and operational
• JIG to liaise with DE to influence strategic planning
• ‘Spreading the learning’ just as fundamental
• Tailored, bespoke information for all stakeholders
• BoG; APTIS; parents and teachers; students?

23

Impact on DE and ELBs

• Relations between DE and ELBs?
• Concerning DE ‘leaves it’ to ELBs to manage impact
• f DP approval in area plan context
• Statutory duty on DE only – not ELBs
• Anticipated ‘re-taking’ would lead to creation of

internal appeals mechanism - disappointment

24

Impact on DE and ELBs

• The Department needs to be alive to the A64

duty at all levels, including the strategic one

• The duty permeates every strand and level of its

work – strategic planning and operations

• Co-ordinated and concerted efforts are required

from integrated movement to ensure DE implements judgment fully and effectively

25

Assistance from other cases

• Coláiste Feirste’s Application [2011] NIQB 98
• ‘I do not accept the respondents contention that this duty is merely
• aspirational. The imposition of the statutory duty has and is intended to

have practical consequences and legislative significance’ [para. 44]

• ‘However the respondent does not have a corresponding duty in relation to

the traditional established educational sector. Accordingly it may facilitate and encourage the IM post primary sector in ways that it need not for other sectors by taking positive steps or removing

• bstacles which inhibit the statutory objective. This does not appear to have

been fully appreciated by the respondent’ [para. 44]

26

Any Questions?

David Haw kins Tempor ar y Pr oject M anager &Solicit or Communit y House, Cit y Link Busines s Par k 6A Alber t St r eet , Belf ast BT12 4HQ Tel: 028 9040 8724 Email: david@p i ls n i. or g

Thank you!