The world’s largest Irish dancing governing body is reviewing a ruling by the High Court after the suspension of an Irish dancing adjudicator over alleged competition fixing was halted.
The court’s granting of an injunction to Amanda Hennigan halting her suspension could have implications for another 43 individuals who have been suspended by An Comisiún Le Rinci Gaelacha (CLRG) as they await disciplinary hearings.
Ms Justice Eileen Roberts refused to stop the commission’s disciplinary process against Ms Hennigan saying in her 45-page ruling that the teacher’s “complaints, however valid, do not demonstrate that at this point in time the disciplinary process has gone irremediably wrong”.
In response to queries on the ruling’s consequences for other suspended individuals, CLRG told The Irish Times that it was “reviewing the ruling in detail with its legal team” but that the “important” judgment enabled it “to move forward and schedule disciplinary hearings”.
The judge said there was “an imperative on CLRG to advance the disciplinary process with a degree of haste from this point onwards” and its failure to do so “may give rise to real prejudice at a future point” and that Ms Hennigan may be entitled to complain about this.
The court was told by CLRG that there was no clear indication of when the hearings would take place as the dancing regulatory body had found it difficult to recruit “independent people with suitable experience and availability” to participate in the disciplinary panel.
In its media statement in response to the judge’s ruling, CLRG said that it would be selecting a disciplinary panel of “external experts” to deliver a “robust and fair process” given the “tight-knit and networked nature of the Irish dancing community and the nature of the allegations”.
Ms Hennigan, a feis adjudicator who also runs an Irish dancing school in the UK, was suspended by CLRG following complaints that text messages between 12 named individuals, including the Hertfordshire-based teacher, and an adjudicator at the 2019 All Ireland Championships were a sample of “alleged corruption” among registered CLRG members.
The number of individuals facing allegations and disciplinary hearings has since risen to 44.
A preliminary investigation into the complaints, which first emerged last summer, by retired appeal court judge Mr Justice Michael Peart found that “broadly speaking” the allegations were that a “number” of individuals sought to have their students receive favourable treatment by an adjudicator who received the texts, in exchange for favours, including sexual favours.
Ms Hennigan’s lawyers, Gerard Meehan SC instructed by solicitor Niall Colgan, argued Mr Justice Peart’s finding had been misinterpreted and treated as though it had said “all” such teachers rather than “a number of such teachers”.
Evidence presented in court showed Ms Hennigan texted a judge in the competition that she would “appreciate anything you can do” for a named student in the competition he was judging.
Prejudicial
Ms Hennigan denied allegations of competition fixing, arguing that “no favouritism was sought or provided” for her dancer.
Her counsel argued that the complaints against individuals were vastly different in character to each other but were amalgamated and treated as one, which was prejudicial to Ms Hennigan, and that a single text could not amount to gross misconduct and merit her suspension.
On Friday, Ms Justice Roberts found that Ms Hennigan had established a strong case that she was not afforded natural justice in relation to her suspension.
There was no certainty in the text exchange involving Ms Hennigan that, on its face, met the threshold for gross misconduct and the wording of the exchange was equivocal, the judge said.
“It does not expressly seek or offer any favourable treatment, and the evidence is that none was received,” she said.
“The complaint against [Ms Hennigan] was considered not as a stand-alone complaint but rather, in the eye of a media storm, in tandem with multiple other complaints of a different and more explicit character.”
This court had a concern that the manner in which the complaint against Ms Hennigan was amalgamated with others could have resulted in a meaning being ascribed to it that it might not otherwise have.
