DRUG ROW BOYS SEEK LIFTING OF SCHOOL BAN

Two brothers, aged 12 and 15, applied to the High Court yesterday for an
order revoking their respective suspension and expulsion from their school
over an incident in which another pupil, a teenage girl, was allegedly
supplied with cannabis.

Mr Justice O'Sullivan heard the older boy had been suspended previously
after he admitted providing cannabis for a joint which was shared among 10
other pupils in an incident last September. It was also alleged the younger
boy had smoked cannabis on that same occasion and he too was suspended, but
for a shorter period.

Following that first incident, the older boy had given a written
undertaking to the school that he would not be involved in drug use.

Both boys have denied involvement in last month's incident and claim fair
procedures were not followed by the school in investigating the incident
and taking action against them. The school claims it was entitled to act as
it did.

Disciplinary action against the two boys arose after the mother of a
teenage girl made a complaint to gardai when her daughter came home in an
intoxicated state or under the influence of drugs in the early hours of
February 4 last.

The court was told the girl had initially alleged she got cannabis from the
15-year-old but later stated she had received the drug from the 12-year-old
after approaching him on the school football pitch. It was also said the
girl had initially said she borrowed pounds 60 to buy cannabis but later
admitted stealing it.

The school board of management subsequently decided unanimously 6-0 in
favour of the expulsion and suspension. Two representatives each of
parents, religious trustees and teachers voted for the measure. Mr Justice
O'Sullivan will give his decision today on the brothers' application for a
temporary injunction restraining their suspension and expulsion pending the
outcome of proceedings taken by them against the school.

Mr Paul Walshe SC, for the brothers, said they had a bona fide cause of
action in which they were alleging there was insufficient evidence before
the board to justify its decision to suspend the younger child for two
months and expel his older brother.

After the teenage girl had alleged she received cannabis from the older
boy, gardai had called to the brothers' home and were satisfied after
talking to the older boy that he had not supplied the drug to the girl.

The girl had then "changed her story" and said she got the cannabis from
the younger brother. That boy had said he was approached by the girl and
they may have drifted apart from other pupils for a time but had denied
that he gave her cannabis. The boy had said he was ``pestered'' by the girl
to such an extent he had changed the number on his mobile phone.

It was impossible for the school board to say with certainty that the girl
had been given cannabis by the younger brother, Mr Walshe said. He added
that young girls approaching puberty are "notoriously unreliable" as a
result of hormonal developments and exploring the wide world of their
sexuality and had been known to make unsubstantiated allegations against
teachers and pupils.

Mr Walshe said the brothers were entitled to precise particulars of the
allegations against them prior to any action being taken against them and
to an opportunity to call witnesses on their behalf and make
representations. They should also have been given an opportunity to
confront their accuser.

Mr Tom Mallon BL, for the school, said the headmaster had interviewed all
pupils named by the teenage girl and he was the appropriate person to
investigate the matter. He headed a very large school and had
responsibilities to all pupils.

While it might have been preferable if there was a written note of the
interviews with the pupils, there was no obligation on a school to provide
the same type of rights as in a court-type setting. The boys' parents had
had their say before the board of management prior to the disciplinary
measures being taken. A school knew best how to deal with these kind of
situations and the presence of lawyers was not to be recommended.

The judge made an order that the students not be identified.