The Supreme Court has dismissed an appeal from a young Traveller boy, John Stokes, challenging a local secondary school’s refusal to enrol him. His mother, Mary Stokes, took the challenge on his behalf, claiming that the school’s admissions policy favouring children of past pupils resulted in indirect discrimination against the Travelling community. The Supreme Court held that there was insufficient evidence or materials to make a proper assessment and dismissed the appeal.
Ms Stokes claimed that the admissions policy of the school gives preference to children based on three criteria: children whose fathers or siblings were past pupils; children from Catholic families; and children transferring from designated local “feeder” primary schools. John Stokes met two of the three criteria, but neither his father nor other family members had attended the school. It was argued that Travellers from his father’s generation were less likely to have attended secondary school than other people of that generation, and so favouring children whose family had previously attended the school amounted to indirect discrimination against children of the Travelling community.
Her claim was successful at the Equality Tribunal, which awarded John a place in the school. The Circuit Court found that the policy was indirectly discriminatory against Travellers but that it was objectively justified in the circumstances. The High Court held that the parental rule was not discriminatory and that it did not amount to particular disadvantage as it could have affected other children.
The five-judge Supreme Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Two of the judges held that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to rule on the matter because the High Court was the highest point of appeal for this matter. Three judges disagreed with the High Court ruling that John’s disadvantage “did not amount to particular disadvantage as it could have affected other children”, however they did dismiss the appeal on the basis that there was insufficient evidence and materials presented to the court to allow it to make a proper assessment as to whether there was particular disadvantage.
Ms Stokes was represented by the Irish Traveller Movement Law Centre. Bridget Quilligan, Director of the Irish Traveller Movement said:
“We are dismayed by the judgment but not defeated. Mary and John Stokes were undeterred in pursuing this case which provided a test platform for the reform of schools enrolment policies, which could improve equality of entry for Travellers and for non-Irish national students who were unfairly disadvantaged by the rule… A deficiency in comprehensive national Traveller data has been long time argued for by National Travellers organisations, and it is only this year the Department of Education and Skills has introduced an ethnic identifier in which to measure Travellers in education.”
Click here to read the judgments in Stokes v Christian Brothers High School Clonmel [2015] IESC 13
Click here to read an article from the Irish Times.