A fifth-year medical student at University College Dublin (UCD) has been unsuccessful in obtaining an injunction to halt a disciplinary procedure against him, according to a ruling delivered in the High Court on . The student alleged violent, abusive, and threatening behaviour, and claimed the disciplinary process was initiated in retaliation for his intention to file a complaint against a School of Medicine faculty member.
Judge Marguerite Bolger dismissed the student’s application, finding that he had not demonstrated a fair issue or a strong case to suggest the disciplinary process was objectively biased. The court was not persuaded that the procedure was invoked as retribution for his concerns regarding his treatment by the module co-ordinator.
The case centers around a series of events that unfolded during the student’s fifth year of the six-year medical degree program. The student experienced illness at the beginning of and was granted neutral “IX” grades for four course modules he was unable to complete. He successfully finished three modules, but encountered difficulties with a fourth, which required a placement in a medical practice.
The student alleged that the module co-ordinator was unwilling to assist him in securing a new placement. On , the student and his father attended the co-ordinator’s office without a scheduled appointment, alongside the subject head. The student stated he intended to elaborate on his circumstances and potentially secure accommodations similar to those granted in another module.
According to the student’s account, he perceived “disgust” in the co-ordinator’s reaction and was told that she did not have time to speak with him, did not want to meet, and that he should not return to her office. Two days later, he received an email informing him that a disciplinary procedure had been initiated.
The student responded with an email asserting that a “retaliatory and false narrative” was being used to undermine his academic progress and divert attention from his initial complaint. He subsequently made claims of bullying and harassment against both the module co-ordinator and the subject head.
The Dean of Medicine informed the student that he would be investigated for breaches of the university’s code of conduct, specifically citing obstructive, disruptive, reckless, and violent, abusive, threatening, offensive, or unacceptable behaviour, including harassment. The Dean also expressed concern for the student’s mental health and recommended a leave of absence until Spring .
The High Court’s decision underscores the importance of due process in student disciplinary proceedings. A recent case, Mares v. Miami Valley Hospital, heard by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on , established that medical residents are entitled to the same “minimal due process protections” as students. This ruling affirmed that schools must provide appropriate due process through formal warnings and established disciplinary procedures.
The UCD case, while distinct from the Mares case which involved a residency program dismissal, highlights a broader trend of increased scrutiny of disciplinary actions within higher education. The Irish High Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that disciplinary sanctions must be proportionate, well-reasoned, and clearly explained, particularly during the appeal stage, as noted in a recent analysis by the MHC Education Law team. The court confirmed that student disciplinary appeals should be treated as full rehearings unless explicitly stated otherwise, requiring decision-makers to independently assess sanctions rather than simply reviewing the original outcome.
The judge in the UCD case determined that the student had not established a fair issue to be tried regarding the disciplinary procedure preceding any bullying and harassment proceedings. She also found insufficient evidence to suggest that the process was fundamentally flawed or that any adverse conclusion would be legally unsustainable. The court ultimately concluded that allowing the disciplinary procedure to continue, given its early stage, presented the least risk of injustice.
This case serves as a reminder to institutions of the need for clear and transparent disciplinary processes. As the MHC Education Law team points out, a well-defined process can help prevent costly legal challenges. Proportionality analysis is not merely a matter of fairness, but a legal requirement, and the rationale behind any disciplinary sanction, especially expulsion or other serious outcomes, must be clearly articulated and evident in the decision-making process. Private consideration of proportionality is insufficient.
The UCD student’s case also echoes concerns raised in online forums, such as a recent Reddit thread discussing a lack of transparency and obstacles faced within UCD’s disciplinary processes, reported on . While the specifics of that case differ, it underscores a broader sentiment regarding the challenges students may encounter navigating institutional disciplinary procedures.
