PILA’s Belfast-based sister project, The Public Interest Litigation Support Project (PILS), recently supported an application by Drumragh Integrated College for judicial review and in the matter of a decision of the Department of Education (2014)NIQB 69
David Hawkins is PILS’ Temporary Project Manager & Solicitor.
On 15 May 2014 the High Court of Northern Ireland granted judicial review to Drumragh Integrated College who challenged the Department of Education’s approach to a development proposal to increase pupil numbers.
Drumragh Integrated College, in Omagh, Co. Tyrone, issued legal proceedings after the Department of Education rejected their proposal to increase its enrolment from 580 to 750 pupils. With assistance from the Integrated Education Fund (IEF) and PILS, the school argued that the commitments made in the Good Friday Agreement and in legislation regarding the promotion of the integrated education sector had not been followed through by the Stormont Executive. The school also argued that the government had failed to fulfil those commitments when drawing up area plans for the future of education provision in Northern Ireland.
This case is unique for a number of reasons. Prior to the hearing for permission to issue the proceedings, the Department agreed to ‘retake’ the decision on the school’s development proposal – this is the first time the Department has revisited any decision, previously advising the school that there was no internal review or appeal mechanism available. They argued that their agreement to ‘retake’ the decision rendered the legal challenge academic. However, the High Court allowed the case to proceed to a full hearing on the basis that the application raised issues of public concern.
Those issues of public interest revolved around the meaning and significance of the statutory duty imposed upon the Department under Article 64(1) of the Education Reform (NI) Order 1989: ‘It shall be the duty of the Department to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education, that is to say the education together at school of Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils.’ Despite the statutory duty being in existence for 25 years, this was the first case to seek judicial clarity on its true meaning.
The Court held that the Department had misinterpreted the scope and the significance of the statutory duty. The Department argued that ‘integrated education’ (i.e. non-denominational schooling) covered any and all schools where there was a mix of Catholic and Protestant pupils and included ‘shared education’ campuses where pupils from both faiths ‘share’ the same school building whilst maintaining their separate ethos. The Court clarified that ‘integrated education’ is a standalone concept and plainly envisages education together at the same school where the Board of Governors strive to achieve an equal balance in terms of worship, celebration and exposure to both faiths. Therefore the integrated education in Article 64(1) refers to ‘education that is integrated throughout and not education that is delivered by a partisan board.’
The Court also adjudicated upon the mechanisms through which regional education area plans are developed between the Department of Education, the State and the Catholic educational sectors but without involvement of integrated sector representatives. The Court accepted that the Department needed an assessment tool for future area-based planning. However, the Court ruled that the Department’s tool, the ‘Needs Model’, is a ‘comparatively static’ long range plan that assumes no growth in the integrated sector. It therefore creates an ‘additional difficulty’ for integrated schools wishing to expand as such expansion will not be in line with the area plans. The Court held that: ‘The creation of an additional difficulty is the opposite of facilitating and encouraging.’
It is clear that the Department will also have to rethink (and possibly overhaul) the strategic planning process in order to give full weight to the statutory duty. After all, as the Court so succinctly declared,
‘The Department need to be alive to the Article 64 duty at all levels, including the strategic one.’
The significance of this judgment is far-reaching. It has added another dimension to the debate on the future of education in Northern Ireland at a time when Stormont leaders are reportedly due to announce a £25 million investment aimed at promoting ‘shared education’. Shared education is a model far removed from the standalone concept of integrated education. Indeed ‘shared education’ is viewed by some as sustaining segregation. At a very apt time, therefore, this judgment means that the Department will have to take positive steps for, and remove ‘barriers’ to, integrated education, which it does not need to do for the main denominational sectors. It has also been hailed as a victory for ‘parent power’, forcing the government to recognise, and meet, the rising demand by parents for integrated schooling. More significantly, it compels the government to give effect to the statutory duty when making any decisions, from the day-to-day operational matters to strategic area planning processes.