|
1. DUBLIN’S TRINITY COLLEGE AND THE “VISITORIAL SYSTEM”
2. SEX DISCRIMINATION AND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (UCD)
This is a
website about the “visitorial system” at Dublin’s Trinity College and my sex discrimination
case against University College Dublin (UCD).
Trinity
College has two Visitors: the “primary” Visitor is its Chancellor, Mary
Robinson, and “the other Visitor” (the secondary Visitor) is Brian McCracken,
who is a former Supreme Court judge (Chapter II, Section 2 of the College
Statutes). McCracken became the secondary Visitor in summer 2003 but did
not retire as a Supreme Court judge until summer 2006 (my Supreme Court appeal
against the Visitors was lodged in December 2005 and would have placed him in a
rather embarrassing position had he remained sitting on the Supreme
Court). One of the five Pro-Chancellors
of the College can act for the Chancellor as “the primary Visitor” if the
Chancellor is “for any reason…unable to act” (Chapter III, Section 1 of the
College Statutes). The College’s Pro-Chancellors are Anthony O’Reilly,
Mrs Justice Susan Denham, Eda Sagarra, Patrick Molloy and Dermot
McAleese.
According
to the Explanatory Notes to the English Higher Education Act 2004:
“Those universities and colleges which were
originally established by Royal Charter have Visitors who exercise a
supervisory role over an institution's domestic affairs, including ruling on
complaints by students which cannot be resolved through an institution's
internal procedures”.
In England,
the Higher Education Act 2004 abolished the jurisdiction of university visitors
“in respect of any complaint… made by a person as a student or former student
at the…institution” and “any complaint…made in respect of an application for
admission to the…institution as a student” (Section 20). In the House of
Commons in 2004, Charles Clarke, the then Secretary of State for Education and
Skills in England, said that “the often archaic arrangements with so-called
visitors” were “more appropriate to the novels of C.P. Snow than to modern
university life” [Official Report, House of Commons, January 27, 2004; Vol.
417, c. 167.]. The Higher Education Act 2004 replaced this system in
English universities with “a transparent means of redress for student
complaints” [Official Report, House of Commons, January 27, 2004; Vol. 417, c.
167.]; the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Skills,
Ivan Lewis, referred to “the independent route that we are establishing for students”
[Official Report, House of Commons Standing Committee H, February 12, 2004; c.
93.]. Unfortunately, in the Republic of Ireland this has yet to
occur…
A visitor
is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition, published
in 1989) as “one who has a right or duty of supervision (usually exercised
periodically) over a university, college, school, or similar institution”. The word ‘visitorial’ is another word for
‘visitatorial’, which is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd edition)
as “pertaining to, connected with, involving or implying, official
visitation”. Click here
to see the definitions as taken from the Oxford
English Dictionary (2nd edition).
As the
Explanatory Notes to that Act confirm, Section 20 of the Higher Education Act
2004 ended in England “the jurisdiction of university Visitors over student
complaints”. Section 20 of the English
Act and the Explanatory Notes to the Act can be read by clicking here. In the Republic of Ireland a similar Act is
long overdue.
Unless
otherwise indicated, all documents are in rich text format (.rtf) or PDF, and
should be compatible with most operating systems and software. Click on
the individual links to learn more about the “visitorial system”, Trinity
College and my cases –
A note about Section 230 Immunity
This site
is hosted by an American web hosting service and US law therefore applies. Section 230 of Title 47 of the United States
Code (47 USC §230) states:
“No provider
or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or
speaker of any information provided by another information content provider”.
I mention
this because Trinity College has in the past threatened the web hosting service
with “legal action”.
As the
College well knows, however, Irish law is not applicable and the Irish courts
have no jurisdiction or authority over the web hosting service or this
site. Not that that stopped the College
from issuing its threats...
Section 230
of Title 47 gives the web hosting service what is known as “Section 230
immunity”.
In Zeran v.
America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997) the US Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit held:
“By its plain language, § 230 creates a federal
immunity to any cause of action that would make service providers liable for
information originating with a third-party user of the service. Specifically, § 230 precludes courts from
entertaining claims that would place a computer service provider in a
publisher’s role. Thus, lawsuits
seeking to hold a service provider liable for its exercise of a publisher’s
traditional editorial functions – such as deciding whether to publish,
withdraw, postpone or alter content – are barred. The purpose of this statutory immunity is not difficult to
discern. Congress recognized the threat
that tort-based lawsuits pose to freedom of speech in the new and burgeoning
Internet medium. The imposition of tort
liability on service providers for the communications of others represented,
for Congress, simply another form of intrusive government regulation of
speech. Section 230 was enacted, in
part, to maintain the robust nature of Internet communication and, accordingly,
to keep government interference in the medium to a minimum”.
A copy of
Zeran v. America Online, Inc. is available here.
So much for
the College’s threats against the web hosting service…
THE
JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE OF IRELAND IN THE REID CASE
June 2,
1888
The
Provost, Fellows and Scholars of Trinity College, Dublin v. the Attorney
General, the Chancellor, Doctors and Masters of the University of Dublin, and
the Trustees and Executors of the will of the late Richard Tuohill Reid
On June 2,
1888 the High Court of Justice of Ireland held that the “framers” of the
Letters Patent of King James I in 1613, which the Master of the Rolls referred to
as “the Charter of James”, “considered Trinity College and the University of
Dublin as so inseparably connected that their titles are used throughout as
synonymous terms”. Considering the
various Letters Patent up to and including the Letters Patent of King George
III in 1794, the Master of the Rolls said that there “was no separate
incorporation” of “the University of Dublin”:
“There was no express creation of it apart from the College”. The Master of the Rolls said that the
Letters Patent of Queen Victoria in 1857 (“21 Vict., July 24, 1857”) “and the
incorporation therein contained…is not the incorporation of the University of
Dublin but of its Senate merely”. He
said: “The advisers of Queen Victoria
knew how to incorporate a University when they meant to do so”. The Masters of the Rolls concluded: “Both phrases, Trinity College, Dublin and
University of Dublin, are used interchangeably, as well in Acts of Parliament as
in the Charters and Regulations”.
Trinity College and the University of Dublin, to quote the Master of the
Rolls, Andrew Maxwell Porter, “are one body”.
There is a
“reference” to the “Universities of Oxford and Cambridge” in the Letters Patent
of King James I in 1613 but the Master of the Rolls, Andrew Maxwell Porter,
said: “I do not think that the
reference to them in this Charter indicates an intention that Trinity College
and the University of Dublin should be separate bodies”. The Master of the Rolls noted that the
“Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are in some respects anomalous bodies, differing
in constitution from nearly all, if not all, other ancient
Universities”. According to the Master
of the Rolls: “Generally speaking, a
University and College are one body”.
“Trinity College” he said, “appears to have resembled” the “Universities
of Bologna and Paris”, which were “both teaching Universities”. Trinity College did not resemble the
“Universities of Oxford and Cambridge”.
The full
text of the judgement appears below –
____________________
This case
comes before the Court on a motion by the plaintiffs on admissions in the
pleadings. The plaintiffs are the
Provost, Fellows, and Scholars, of Trinity College, Dublin, and the defendants
are the Attorney-General, the Chancellor, Doctors, and Masters of the University
of Dublin, and the Trustees and Executors of the will of the late Richard
Touhill, Barrister-at-Law, formerly of Killarney, in the county of Kerry, and
afterwards pf Bombay, in the East Indies.
The will of
Mr Reid is set out in extenso in the plaintiff’s statement of claim,
except that in the will the testator describes himself as LL.D., without
stating, however, of what University.
The will bears the date the 22nd of September, 1881. It commences by appointing the defendants,
Sir George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood, Knight, M.D., of the India Office,
and James Cornelius O’Dowd, Deputy Judge Advocate-General, and
Barrister-at-Law, of No. 35, Great George’s-street, Westminster, his
executors.
The
statement of claim alleges that the testator died on the 11th day of February,
1883, at Rome, without having revoked or altered his will, which was duly
proved in the Probate Division of Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in
England, by the defendants, George Christopher Molesworth Birdwood and James
Cornelius O’Dowd, on the 25th day of April, 1883. The testator had no assets in Ireland.
Hannah
Reid, the sister of the testator in his will mentioned, died before him, on the
9th day of February, 1883; her life estate, therefore, never came into
existence. The ready money and cash at
the testator’s bankers were sufficient for payment of his debts, funeral and
testamentary expenses, and the other expenses connected with the administration
of the estate.
The bequest
in the will contained of all the testator’s shares or stock in the Great Indian
Peninsula Railway Company, and in the Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway
Company is, for the sake of convenience, referred to as the second bequest; and
the bequest of all the testator’s funds in Three per Cent. Consolidated Bank
Annuities is referred to as the third bequest.
The
testator was, at the time of his death, possessed of the sums of £2800 Great
Indian Peninsula Railway Company Guaranteed £5 per Cent. Stock, and £1904
Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Company Stock; which sums became
vested in his executors as trustees of his will, for the purposes of the second
bequest; and he also died possessed of the sum of £6089 13s. 4d.
Consolidated £3 per Cent. Bank Annuities, transferable at the Bank of England,
which became vested for the purposes of the third bequest.
As to the
second bequest, the plaintiffs say that there is no such body, strictly
speaking, as the Board of the University.
The defendants, the Senate of the University, have been incorporated by
Letters Patent, dated the 24th July, 1857, under the title of The Chancellor,
Doctors, and Masters of the University of Dublin; and as such Corporation are,
by the said Letters Patent, empowered to hold and acquire such property, real
and personal, as may be given or bequeathed to them. Up to the present the defendants have not acquired, nor do they
now hold, any property.
As to the
third bequest, the plaintiffs say “that Trinity College, Dublin is the only
College in the University, and is incorporated by the Letters Patent or Charter
of the 34th year of Queen
Elizabeth, which was confirmed by the Letters Patent, or Charter of the 13th
Charles I., under the name of the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars, of the
College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth, near Dublin, who
are the plaintiffs in this action. The
Provost and senior Fellows of the said College are by the said Charter and the
Statutes of the College constituted the Governing Body of the College, and are
known as the Board of Trinity College, Dublin.
There is no other body called or known as the Board either in the
College or University”. That statement
must be taken as uncontradicted.
The
defendants, the executors, having been informed of the facts aforesaid, were
advised that they could not safely give effect to the second and third bequests
without the protection of the Court, and accordingly they lodged in the
Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice in England, to the following
credit:- “In the matter of the trusts of the bequests by the will of the late
Richard Touhill Reid, in favour of the Corporation of the University of Dublin,
in trust to found a Professorship of Penal Legislation” – the said sum of
£1904, Bombay, Baroda, and Central India Railway Company Stock; and the sum of
£2300, Great Indian Peninsula Railway Company Guaranteed £5 per Cent. Stock,
part of the said sum of £2800 like stock; and £339 8s. 6d. cash,
representing the said second bequest, and the dividends that had accrued in
respect thereof up to the 1st July, 1884, less by a sum of £702 16s.,
paid by the same defendants in respect of duty on the capital of the second
bequest; and £26 2s. for duty on the income thereof, and £27 10s.,
being a moiety of the costs of and incident to the lodgment in Court.
The
defendants, the executors, also lodged in the Chancery Division of the said
High Court of Justice in England, to the following credit: - “In the matter of
the trusts of the bequest by the ‘Will of the late Richard Touhill Reid, in
favour of the Corporation of the University of Dublin, in trust to found in
Trinity College, Dublin, additional Sizarships, Exhibitions, and for other
purposes’ – the sum of £5463 17s. 11d. Consolidated £3 per Cent.
Bank Annuities, part of the said sum of £6089 13s. 4d., like
annuities, and £217 4s. 8d. cash, representing the third bequest,
and the dividends that had accrued in respect thereof, up to the 5th July,
1884, less by a sum of £616 11s. 6d., paid by the same defendants
in respect of legacy duty on the capital of the third bequest; and £16 9s.
for duty on the income thereof, and £27 10s. being the remaining moiety
of the costs hereinbefore mentioned.
The rest of
this proceeding was the payment of 10 per cent. Legacy duty for both the second
and third bequests, from which duty they would probably have been free if
lodged in this Court, inasmuch as the law in England is different from that in
this country. Here no duty is payable
on bequests for purposes merely charitable in Ireland.
The
statement of claim then states that the testator, who was born in the County of
Kerry, was educated in Trinity College, Dublin, where he took the degree of
Master of Arts. He was afterwards
called to the Irish Bar, and went to Bombay in the year 1853, after which
period he never returned to Ireland.
The
statement of claim then avers that all the endowments, estates, and property by
which the University of Dublin is sustained, including all endowments for
special purposes, are vested in the plaintiffs, and managed by the Board of
Trinity College. The appointment and
election of the professors in the University was also vested in the said Board
up to the time when the Council was constituted by Letters Patent of the 4th
day of November, 1874. By these Letters
Patent the nomination to all professorships, with certain specified exceptions,
is now vested in the Council, subject to the approval of the Board; and since
the constitution of the Council any proposed alterations in the rules and
regulations respecting any studies, lectures, or examinations (not connected
with the Divinity School), and also any proposed alterations in the rules and
regulations respecting the qualifications, duties, and tenure of office of any
professor (not connected with the Divinity School), require the approval both
of the Board and of the Council. No new
professorship can now be created or founded by the Board without the consent of
the Council.
The Council
consists of the Provost, or in his absence the Vice-Provost, of Trinity
College, and sixteen other members elected out of the members of the Senate of
the University.
The Board
of Trinity College elect to all the existing sizarships, after the usual
examination of candidates.
The
statement of claim then states that the plaintiffs are desirous that a scheme
or schemes may be settled and approved by the Court for the regulation and
management of the said charitable bequests respectively, and for the
application of the income of the said stocks and securities, pursuant to the
trusts by the said will declared with respect to the same respectively, and
that the plaintiffs may be at liberty to apply to the Chancery Division in the
High Court of Justice in England for the transfer to the credit of this action
of the several securities and moneys
standing to the credits respectively hereinbefore mentioned.
The
plaintiffs claim
1.
That
the trusts of the will of the testator Richard Touhill Reid, with respect to
the second and third bequests respectively, may be carried into execution under
the direction of the Court.
2.
That
the plaintiffs may be at liberty to apply in the Chancery Division of the High
Court of Justice in England in the said matter, under the Trustee Relief Act,
for the transfer and payment into this Court, to the credit of this action, of
the several securities and moneys which now are, or shall at any time hereafter
be, standing to the said credits hereinbefore mentioned.
3.
That a
scheme or schemes may be approved by the Court, directing the regulation and
management of the said charitable bequests respectively, and the application of
the income of the said stocks and securities, pursuant to the trusts of the
said will, declared with respect to the same respectively.
4.
That
for the purposes aforesaid all necessary accounts may be taken, inquiries made,
and directions given and
Such further relief as the case may require.
The
Chancellor, Doctors, and Masters of the University of Dublin have filed a
statement of defence, by which they admit the making of the will as set forth
in the statement of claim, and the statements of fact and the documents in the
statement of claim mentioned, and submit that they are the body designated as
the Corporation of the University of Dublin in the will; and that the stocks
and funds which are in the statement of claim designated as the 2nd and 3rd
legacy bequests respectively should be transferred and paid to them for the
purposes of the will; and state that they are desirous that a scheme or schemes
directing the regulation and management of the said charitable bequests
respectively, and the application of the income of the same may be settled and
approved of by the Court as in the statement of claim is prayed.
The
Attorney-General has delivered a statement of defence, in which he states in
substance that he has no knowledge of the several matters in dispute, but
submits that the legacies are good charitable bequests.
The principal
question for decision therefore is, What is the body which the testator
designates as “the Corporation of the University of Dublin”?
Trinity
College, Dublin, was founded by Queen Elizabeth, by a Charter dated A.D. 1592,
in the 34th year of her reign. That
Charter is of great importance in determining the constitution of Trinity
College, and of the University of Dublin.
That
Charter recites:-
“Cum dilectus subditus noster Henricus Ussher
Archidiaconus Dubliniensis nobis himiliter supplicavit, nominee civitatis
Dubliniensis, pro eo quod nullum Collegium pro Scholaribus in bonis literis et
artibus erudiendis infra regnum nostrum Hiberniae adhuc existit; ut unum
Collegium matrem Universitatem juxta civitatem Dubliniensem ad meliorem
educationem, institutionem, et instructionem Scholarium et studentium in regno
nostro praedicto erigere, fundare, et stabilire dignaremur;” and goes on to
provide:- “quod de caetero sit, et erit, unum Collegium mater Universitatis in
quodam loco vocato Allhallowes juxta Dublin praedictum, pro educatione,
institutione, et instructione juvenum, et studentium in artibus et
facultatibus, perpetuis futuris temporibus duraturum, et quod erit, et
vocabitur COLLEGIUM SANCTAE ET INDIVIDUAE TRINITATIS JUXTA DUBLIN A SERENISSIMA
REGINA ELIZABETHA FUNDATUM. Ac illud
Collegium de uno Praeposito, et de tribus Sociis nomine plurium, et tribus
Scholaribus nomine plurium, in perpetuum continuaturum erigimus, ordinamus,
creamus, fundamus, et stabilimus firmitèr per praesentes.”
Then, after
nominating the first Provost, the Fellows, and Scholars, the Charter proceeds
to incorporate them:-
“Per nomen PRAEPOSITI, SOCIORUM, ET SCHOLARIUM
COLLEGII SANCTAE TRINTATIS ELIZABETHAE REGINAE JUXTA DUBLIN”.
Then follow
directions as to the election in future of the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars
who are empowered to acquire and hold manors, lands, tenements, and
hereditaments for the maintenance of the College, and to sue and be sued by
their corporate name; and the Charter continues in these most important words:-
“Et cum gradus quosdam in artibus et
facultatibus constitui literis fuisse adumento compertum sit, ordinamus per
praesentes, ut studiosi in hoc Collegio sanctae et individuae Trinitatis
Elizabethae Reginae juxta Dublin, libertatem et facultatem habeant, gradus tum
Baccalaureatus, Magisterii, et Doctoratûs, juxta tempus idoneum, in omnibus
artibus et facultatibus obtinendi”.
The “tempus
idoneum” here probably refers to the period at which the first Undergraduates
would be ready to receive degrees. The
Charter proceeds:-
“Hoc semper iterum proviso, ut cum hujus
Collegii Socii septum integros annos post gradum Magestrii ibi assumptum
adimpleverint, tum è Sociorum numero amoveantur, ut alii in eorum locum
suffecti, pro hujus Regni et Ecclesiae beneficio, emolumentum habeant; et ut
INTRA SE pro hujusmodi gradibus assequendis habeant libertatem, omnia acta, et
scholastica exercitia adimplendi, quemadmodum Praeposito, et majori parti
Sociorum visum fuerit, ac ut omnes personas pro hujusmodi rebus melius
promovendis, eligere, creare, nominare, et ordinare possint, sive sit
Procancellarius, Procurator, aut Procuratores (nam Cancellarii dignitatem
honoratissimo et fidelissimo Consiliario, nostro, Guilelmo Cecillio, Domino
Baroni de Burghley, totius Angliae Thesaurario, delegatam approbamus), et ut
posthac idoneam hujusmodi personam, cum defuerit, pro hujus Collegii
Cancellario Praepositus, et major pars Sociorum eligant, ordinamus.”
This
Charter was granted in 1592, and no other Charter or Letters Patent were
granted during Elizabeth’s reign. In
1613 further Letters Patent were granted by King James I. An interval of twenty-one years therefore
had elapsed between them and the Charter of Elizabeth; and that Degrees must
during that interval have been conferred on Students of the College appears to
me to be beyond doubt. Therefore it
must have been considered that the Charter of Elizabeth, proprio vigore,
conferred upon the College power to grant degrees. Some body, authorized by the Crown, must have conferred them:
since the granting of degrees is a branch of the Royal prerogative, the Crown
being the fountain of honour. The
Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, and Proctors, were not incorporated; the Provost,
Fellows, and Scholars were: and it follows that they must have conferred the
degrees in the interval between the Charter of Elizabeth and that of James I.,
though, no doubt, in this the College acted through the Vice-Chancellor.
The Charter
of James, after reciting the Charter of Elizabeth, proceeds:-
“CUMQUE DICTUM COLLEGIUM SIT ET HABEATUR
UNIVERSITAS, AC HABEAT, GAUDEAT, ET UTATUR OMNIBUS ET SINGULIS LIBERTATIBUS,
PRIVILEGIIS, ET IMMUNITATIBUSAD UNIVERSITATEM SIVE ACADEMIAM PERTINENTIBUS SIVE
SPECTANTIBUS…idcerco operae pretium et necesarium videtur, quod DICTUM
COLLEGIUM ET UNIVERSITAS habeant plenam et absolutam potestatem duos Burgenses
de seipsis eligendi, eosque mittendiad supremam illam curiam Parliamenti, in
hoc regno nostro Hiberniae, de tempore in tempus, tenendi: in quâ quidèm curiâ
hujusmodi Burgenses sic electi et missi, juxta formam universitatis Oxoniensis
et Cantabrigiensis in Angliâ usitatam, notum faciant verum statum dicti
Collegii ac universitatis ibidem; ita ut nullum statutum aut actus generalis
dicto Collegio ac universitati privatim, sine justâ ac debitâ notitiâ et
informatione in eâ parte habitâ, praejudicit aut noceat; SCIATIS quod nos, de
gratiâ nostrâ speciali,...Voluimus et concessimus, ac per prasentes pro nobis
haeredibus, et successoribus nostris, voluimus et consedimus, praefatis
Praepositio, Sociis, et Scholaribus dicti Collegii, et successoribus suis,
necnon ordinamus et stabilimus per praesentes, perpetuis futuris temporibus
quod sint et erunt in dicto Collegio ac universitate juxta Dublin duo Burgenses
Parliamenti nostri haeredum et successorum nostrorum.”
The words
just quoted, such as “Cumque dictum Collegium sit et habeatur universitas,” “et
utatur omnibus et singulis libertatibus privilegiis et immunitatibus ad
universitatem pertinentibus.” “Collegii
et universitatis praedictae,” “quod dictum collegium et universitas habeant”;
again, the same words, “dicti Collegii ac universitatis,” “dicto Collegio ac
universitate juxta Dublin,” show that the framers of the Charter considered
Trinity College and the University of Dublin as so inseparably connected that
their titles are used throughout as synonymous terms. To whom is the power of electing two members given? “Praefatis Praeposito , Sociis et
Scholaribus dicti Collegii.”
The Charter
recites that Trinity College was founded by Queen Elizabeth, “ad exemplum
academiarum nostrarum Oxoniensis et Cantabrigiensis.” Oxford and Cambridge are no doubt in some respects analogous
Universities. But they are essentially
different in this that they each contain several Colleges; and I do not think
the reference to them in this Charter indicates an intention that Trinity
College and the University of Dublin should be separate bodies.
The next
Charter is that of 13 Charles I., which bears date in 1637. It recites the Charter of Elizabeth and
states that by it she granted “quod deinceps esset unum Collegium mater
Universitatis, in quodam loco vocato Allhallows juxta Dublin.” It then recites the incorporation of the College;
its power to acquire and hold lands for the maintenance of the College; its
capacity of suing and being sued in actions, real, personal and mixed; of
having a common seal; the power of the Provost and majority of the Fellows to
make laws, statutes and ordinances, for the government of the College; and that
“eadem nupur regina per easdam literas suas patentes ordinaverit, ut studiosi
in dicto Collegio libertatem et facultatem haberent gradus tum Baccalaureatûs,
Magisterii et Doctoratûs, juxta tempus idoneum, in cmnibus artibus et facultatibus
obtinendi; et ut intra se, pro hujusmodi gradibus assequendis haberent
libertatem omnia acta et scholastica exercitia adimplendi, quemadmodum
Praeposito, et majori parti Sociorum usum foret.” The Charter confirms the Charter of Elizabeth in respect of its
above recited provisions, and provides, with the consent of the Provost,
Fellows, and Scholars, that Fellows should not be removed at the end of seven
years, as provided by the Charter of Elizabeth: recalls the power of the
Provost and Fellows to make statutes and ordinances, and reserves that power to
the Crown; repeals those already made, and substitutes an amended code.
In further
Letters Patent of the same year (13 Charles I.), I find this recital (after
referring to the great advantage of schools and universities in England):-
“Quod et reipsậfecit regina Elizabetha celebris memoriae, Collegium
Sanctae Trinitatis juxta urbem Dubliniensem extruendo; quod etiam annuis
reditibus dotavit et ACADEMIAE PRIVILEGIIS ORNAVIT”.
The Letters
Patent then proceed to establish certain laws for the government of the
College. The Provost and seven senior
Fellows are to form a Board. The Board
are to have the government of the College, the election of the Fellows,
officials, &c., and the conferring of degrees “GRADUUMQUE COLLATIONES
DEFINIANT, ET CONCLUDANT.” A more clear
assertion that the College had the right of conferring degrees is not easy to
imagine.
The next
Letters Patent which I have to refer to are those of the 34 George III. (A.D.
1794). They are addressed to the
Provost and senior Fellows, and relate to the admission of Roman Catholic
students to degrees, and announce:…“quod omnibus subditis nostris, qui
religionem Pontificiam sive Romano-Catholicam profitentur, liceat et deinceps
licebit in dictum Collegium admitti, atque gradus in dictâ academia obtinere,
praestitisprius omnibus exercitiis per leges et consuetudines academiae
requisites, aliquo statuto dicti Collegii, aut statuto, regulâ, aut
consuetudine quâcunque dictae academiae in contrarium non obstante.”
Now,
pausing here, if nothing else had happened, what was the position of the
University of Dublin? There was no
separate incorporation of it. If there
had been it must have been by Royal Charter by virtue of the prerogative of the
Crown. There was no express creation of
it apart from the College. The College
had the power of electing the Chancellor and the other officers, and of
“defining and determining” the conferring of degrees. The College was supreme; and the University was a branch or
department of it, if indeed the College itself was not more accurately the
University. That it was so considered
by the framers of the Charter of James I. appears from the expressions: “sit et
habeateur universitas,” “academiae privilegiis ornavit,” and from the power of
the College to confer degrees “intra se.”
It cannot therefore admit of doubt that prior to the Letters Patent of
Queen Victoria a gift to the “Corporation of the University of Dublin” would have
meant a gift to Trinity College, Dublin, and could have meant nothing else.
Both
phrases, Trinity College, Dublin, and University of Dublin, are used
interchangeably, as well in Acts of Parliament as in the Charters and
Regulations. The Fourth Article of the
Act of Union of Great Britain and Ireland, 40 Geo. III. c. 38, is, “that four
lords spiritual, by rotation of sessions, and twenty-eight lords temporal
elected for life by the peers of Ireland shall be the number to sit and vote on
the part of Ireland, in the House of Lords of the United Kingdom; and one
hundred commoners (two for each county of Ireland, two for the city of Dublin,
two for the city of Cork, one for the University of Trinity College, and
one for each of the most considerable cities, towns and boroughs) be the number
to sit and vote, on the part of Ireland, in the House of Commons of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom”.
By the
Reform Act of 1832, 2 & 3 Wm. IV. c. 88, section 11, it is (no doubt)
enacted that “the city of Limerick, the city of Waterford, the borough of Belfast,
and the University of Dublin shall each respectively return one member
to serve in such future Parliament, in addition to the member which each of the
said places is now by law entitled to return”.
But by sect. 70 it is provided “that in addition to the persons now
qualified to vote at the election of a member to serve in Parliament for the
University of Dublin,” “every person being of the age of twenty-one years,
who has obtained, or hereafter shall obtain, the degree of Master of Arts, or
any higher degree, &c., or a Scholarship or Fellowship in the said
University, shall be entitled to vote for the election of a member or
members to serve in any future Parliament for the said University,”
&c. By the University of Dublin in
this context Trinity College must also be meant, since Scholarships and
Fellowship belong to the College and not to the University proper.
The Act of
Settlement, too, speaks of the lands of the University, meaning obviously the
lands of Trinity College, Dublin. The
corporation of the College was at that time the corporation of the
University. There was no other
corporation but that of the College which, in the words of the Letters Patent
of James I., was declared, and was held to be, a University “sit et habeatur
universitas.”
There is
nothing in this view I think opposed to the opinion of the late Mr. Blackburne,
Vice-Chancellor of the University. He
said:-
“It is now, for any practical purpose, not
necessary to inquire whether the University was a corporate body before the
late Charter. But I may observe that
through the agency of the Chancellor, or the Vice-Chancellor, and other proper
officers, for whose perpetual appointment the Crown made ample provision, the
power to grant degrees was insured to continue for all time. So and in like manner, the succession of
members of the Senate was to be ever supplied out of the members of another
body expressly incorporated”.
Mr.
Blackburn thus gives no positive opinion on the question. Nor is the view I have expressed opposed, in
my opinion, to the fundamental idea of College and University. The Universities of Oxford and Cambridge are
in some respects anomalous bodies, differing in constitution from nearly
all, if not all, other ancient Universities.
In The
Attorney-General v. Lady Downing and others (Wilmot’s Ca. and Op. 14), Lord
Chief Justice Wilmot says:-
“And, indeed, I think Universities and Colleges
are within the proper and genuine sense and meaning of the words ‘Schools of
Learning’. The places where the public
exercises are performed are called the Schools. An University is a great school, incorporated to instruct, by
their Professors and regular exercises, all who come to study there, and by degrees
to give their students rank and credit in the republic of letters, and which
are qualifications for lucrative offices and employments in life. It is a public school of divinity, physic,
law, and all arts and sciences. And
colleges are schools of learning, furnishing scholars for the universal school,
which is a combination of all those schools; and in any other view than as
schools of learning they are as useless to societies as monasteries; and
therefore, I think they are not only within the equity of the Act, but within
the words of it. And I consider this
devise as made for the further augmenting of the University: and for that
reason the University, in its corporate capacity, is very properly made a
relator in this information being materially and essentially interested in the
benefaction. For though the University
is not a corporation of colleges, but of matriculated members, and all colleges
are separate corporations, yet these colleges attract and furnish the members
to be matriculated, and every new college enlarges the universal school, and by
increasing the number of scholars adds weight, dignity, and strength to the
University.”
Generally
speaking, a University and College are one body. The Universities of Bologna and Paris are both teaching
Universities, and Trinity College in this respect appears to have resembled
them.
We now come
to the Letters Patent of the Queen (21 Vict., July 24, 1857). In them we find the following recitals:-
“Whereas we are informed that the senate or
congregation of the University of Dublin, consisting of the Chancellor or
Vice-Chancellor, Doctors in the several faculties, and Masters of Arts of the
said University, has heretofore, for the last two hundred years and upwards,
been governed by certain rules or statutes, entitled, “Regulae seu Consuetudines
Universitatis Dubliniensis pro solenniore graduum collatione”. And whereas our right trusty and right
entirely beloved councillor, John George, Archbishop of Armagh, Primate of all
Ireland, Chancellor of the said University; our right trusty and well-beloved
councillor, Francis Blackburne, Doctor of Laws, Vice-Chancellor of the said
University; and our trusty and well-beloved the Provost and senior Fellows of
the College of the holy and undivided Trinity, near Dublin, have humbly
represented unto us that the said rules or statutes have, by lapse of time,
become in many respects obsolete, and unsuited to the present state of the said
University and College, and doubts have been raised as to whether the Provost
and senior Fellows of the said College have power to alter and amend the same;
and the said Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Provost, and senior Fellows have
therefore humbly supplicated us to remove the said doubts, and to grant unto
the said Provost and senior Fellows of the said College, and also unto the
senate or congregation of the said University, such further powers as will
enable them to revise, alter or repeal the said rules and usages relating to
the conferring of degrees by the said University, and to enact other rules or
regulations for the same purpose, to be binding and obligatory on all members
of the University”.
Then the
granting part of the Letters Patent is as follows:-
“We are graciously pleased to accede to their
request; Know ye, therefore, that we, of our special grace, certain knowledge,
and mere motion, by and with the advice and consent of our right trusty and
well-beloved cousin and councillor George William Frederick, Earl of Carlisle,
our Lieutenant_General and General Governor of Ireland, do, by these presents,
for us, our heirs and successors, enact and confirm to the Provost and senior
Fellows of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity aforesaid, and unto
the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor, Doctors and Masters of the said University,
all such powers, rights, and privileges as by the charters and statutes of our
royal predecessors to the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars of the College of the
holy and undivided Trinity aforesaid, or to the University of Dublin aforesaid,
have heretofore been given, granted or by usage and prescription possessed,
without any alteration or diminution whatsoever, save as herein provided.
And it is our will and pleasure that
the Provost and senior Fellows of our said College of the holy and undivided
Trinity shall have power, if they shall think fit, to alter, amend, and repeal
all laws, rules, or bye-laws heretofore existing, for the more solemn
conferring of degrees by the senate of the University aforesaid, and to make,
enact, and enforce, from time to time, such additional laws, rules and
bye-laws, and to alter or vary the same for the like purpose, as to them shall
seem fit. Provided always, that no such
new laws, rules, or bye-laws, or emendations or alterations or such existing
laws, rules, or bye-laws, shall be of force or binding upon the said University
until they shall have received the sanction of the senate of the same in
congregation lawfully assembled”.
No law is
to be proposed except by the Board.
Then, the constitution, powers, and privileges of the Senate are defined
and determined, and to carry out the object in view the Senate is incorporated
in these words:-
“And our will and pleasure further is, that the
senate of the said University shall be, and continue to be, a body
corporate, and have a common seal, and shall have power under the said seal to
do all such acts as may be lawful for them to do (in conformity with the laws
and statutes of the realm, and with the charter and statutes of the College of
the holy and undivided Trinity, and with the statutes, laws, and bye-laws made
or to be made in pursuance of these our Royal Letters), under the name, style,
and title of the Chancellor, Doctors, and Masters of the University of Dublin.
It shall be further lawful for the
said Chancellor, Doctors, and Masters to apply the funds which may or shall
belong to the said University senate, for the promotion of useful learning in
the said University, subject to such regulations as the Provost and senior
Fellows of our said College shall approve of or prescribe.
And it shall be lawful for the said
Chancellor, Doctors, and Masters of the said University, in their corporate
capacity as aforesaid, to have, hold, acquire, and receive such lands, manors,
tenements, or other property, real or personal, as may, from the date of these presents,
be given or bequeathed unto them, by any person whatsoever, for the
encouragement of learning in the said University. Provided also, that such gift or bequest does not impose any
condition or obligation inconsistent with the statutes of the said University
in force at the time of such gift or bequest, or inconsistent with the charters
and statutes of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity, near Dublin”.
It is on
these Letters Patent and the incorporation therein contained of the Chancellor,
Doctors, and Masters, that the claim of the Senate, who are the defendants,
depends. In my opinion, this is not the
incorporation of the University of Dublin, but of its Senate merely.
By another
Charter of the same reign another University, the Queen’s University, has been
incorporated. The second Charter of the
Queen’s University (I have not the first one at hand) is in these words:-
“We do will, order…and found a University,
which shall be one body politic and corporate by the name of the Queen’s
University in Ireland.”…“And we do further will and order that the said body
politic and corporate shall consist of a Chancellor, Senators, Secretary,
Professors, Graduates, and Students.”
Thus we
find a Charter of the same reign, dated a few years after the Charter
incorporating the Senate, by which a University was incorporated, consisting of
a Chancellor, Senators, a Secretary, Graduates, and Students, and in it the
persons precisely defined and described of which the University is to consist. This is not an accidental circumstance. The advisers of Queen Victoria knew how to
incorporate a University when they meant to do so.
There is,
however, another body, viz. the Council, which was established by Letters Patent
of the 38 Vict. (November 4, 1874), and to which it is said the will of Mr.
Reid refers when he speaks of the “Board.”
I need not allude in detail to its constitution: suffice to say, it is
nowhere called the Board in any official instrument. The contest here is between the College and the Senate.
There are
therefore two bodies in existence, to either of which the designation of
corporation of the University of Dublin may refer, and to one or other to which
it must refer: not with strict accuracy in either case, perhaps, but
sufficiently clearly to enable a gift to take effect in favour of whichever is
in fact meant. If the gift had been to
the “Senate” or to the Chancellors, Doctors, and Masters, there would have been
no question, since whatever belief one might have had of the intention of the
testator, the body would have been unmistakably defined.
There is of
course no reported case in point: Mostyn v. Mostyn, 5 H.L.C. 155; Stringer
v. Gardiner, 27 Beav. 35, 4 De Gex. & J. 468, are cases of gifts to
known individuals where there is some inaccuracy in the name and the
description connected with it. Nor have
Ellis v. Houstoun, 10 Ch. Div. 236, or Holmes v. Custance, 12
Ves. 279, any intimate bearing upon it.
Kilvert’s
Trusts, L.R. 7 Ch.
171, comes perhaps nearer to the present case than any of those which were
cited. In that case a testatrix by a
will made in 1868 gave a legacy to the “treasurer for the of the fund for the
relief of widows and orphans of the clergy of the diocese of Worcester, to be
applied by him in the benefit of the charity.”
Two societies made a claim – one had been founded in 1777 for the relief
of the widows orphans of the clergy of the diocese, at which time the diocese
comprised only the Archdeaconry of Worcester. In 1837 the Archdeaconry of Coventry was added to the diocese, and
in 1848 the Worcester Society altered its title, so as to show that its
operations were restricted to the Archdeaconry of Worcester. The other society had been founded in 1877
for the relief of the widows and orphans of the clergy in the Archdeaconry of
Coventry. The father of the testatrix
had been a subscriber to the Worcester Society till his death in 1817. His widow had continued the subscription
till her death in 1860, and the testatrix had continued it from that time at an
increased rate; but it did not appear that the testatrix or any of her family
had subscribed to the Coventry Society; it was held by Vice-Chancellor Malins
that the gift was to be treated as a gift to an object, not to a particular
society, but must be apportioned between the two societies. But the Court of Appeal held that the gift
was a gift to a particular society, with a slight inaccuracy of description,
and that the Worcester Society was solely entitled. Lord Justice James said:-
“Parol evidence is admissible to show which of
the two was meant. Evidence has always
been admitted show which of two societies the testator knew, and to which of
them he subscribed. Such evidence is
admissible to remove an ambiguity, if there has been sufficient ground laid to
raise an ambiguity, and I am assuming against the appellant that the Coventry
Society have raised an ambiguity. The
fund must, in my opinion, be paid to the treasurer of the Worcester Society.”
LORD JUSTICE MELLISH: “I am of the same
opinion. The language of the bequest
shows that the testatrix had some particular society in her mind, and the
question is, What Society? There is no
difference between the course to be adopted here and in any other case of finding
who answers the description given in a will of a legatee. If there was no society answering the
description sufficiently to enable it to claim the legacy, it might be that the
Court would carry the gift into effect as a gift for the relief of the widows
and orphans of the clergy of the diocese.
Here, however, I think it clear that the appellants come near enough to
the description to be entitled to the legacy, if there was no other society to
compete with them. There is a
description of the society by its old name; that name has been changed, but
that object is precisely the same as at first, and the old name is wholly
inapplicable to it. Then, assuming
another society to come near enough to the description to have ground for a
claim, parol evidence is admissible to remove the ambiguity, and the evidence
given is decisive.”
This, in
short, is a case of latent ambiguity, and in such cases the rule is (when the
fact of ambiguity is shown) first to see whether the other words of the will
afford grounds sufficient to enable us to decide between the two conflicting
bodies, and if not, then to admit extrinsic evidence.
The
extrinsic evidence in the case, or rather the extrinsic facts admitted without
proof, are all the one way. The
testator had left the College and University long before the Senate was
incorporated or the Council heard of.
It was to Trinity College and its University of Dublin inseparably and
undistinguishably blended with it, that he owed his training and his
degree.
But in the words
of the will itself are to be found indications which leave to my mind no doubt
as to what his intention was. He uses
the words University and College as loosely as the Legislature and the Crown
use them. First he bequeaths all the
books which he may die possessed of “the Librarian for the time being of the
University of Dublin.” There is no
Librarian of the University of Dublin or of the Senate of the University of
Dublin. There is a Librarian of Trinity
College, Dublin.
Secondly,
the testator bequeaths his shares or stock in the Great Indian Peninsula
Railway Co. &c., to his trustees for the purpose of paying the same to the
Corporation of the University of Dublin, to endow in the said University a
Professorship of Penal Legislation, provided that it shall be lawful for the Board
of the University to assign any other duties which they may consider proper
to be performed by the said Professors so as to make the study of Penal
Legislation a regular branch of instruction in the Law School of the University. And I empower the said Board to award prizes
annually for proficiency in the said branch of legal science, &c. The word Board has a well-defined meaning in
Trinity College. It means the Provost
and Senior Fellows. It as contended by
Mr. Twigg, on behalf of the defendants, that the word is synonymous with
Council. In my opinion the testator did
not mean to designate a body which was not constituted till long after his
connexion with Trinity College ceased, and his use of the words, “Board of the
University,” affords a key to what he meant by the Corporation of the
University of Dublin.
Thirdly,
the testator bequeaths his Three Per Cent. Consolidated Bank Annuities to the
Corporation of the University of Dublin, “to found in Trinity College, Dublin,
additional Sizarships, or Exhibitions in the nature of Sizarships, not to
exceed five in number, open only to students of limited means, natives of the
County of Kerry, who, having failed to obtain the ordinary Sizarship of the
College, may be deemed to have shown sufficient merit: such Exhibitions to be
held on conditions similar in all respects to those upon which ordinary
Sizarships are held in the said College, and not to preclude such Exhibitioners
from obtaining any other Exhibitions or Prizes to which an ordinary Sizar would
be eligible; and the Board of the said University shall determine the annual
stipend to be allowed to each such Exhibitioner, or the privileges in lieu of
such stipend, in such a way as to place him with respect to exemption from
fees, free commons, and free rooms, on a footing similar to that of ordinary
Sizars. What Board? Plainly the Board of the same Body – the
same Corporation to which he made the bequest, “and I empower the said Board to
apply the residue of such income (if any) in such manner as they may think best
calculated to encourage superior education in the said county, as, for
instance, by assigning from time to time stipends, to such schoolmasters as may
distinguish themselves in preparing students for the said University, such
stipends to be given on condition that such master or masters shall undertake
to prepare, free of expense, as day scholars, a certain number of boys of
limited means for the Sizarships Examinations of the University, or in such
other way as to the said Board may seem most effectual and expedient for the
promotion of superior educationin the said county.” There are no Sizarships in the University; they are in the
College. There are no such
Examinations as Sizarship Examinations of the University. They are held in and by Trinity
College. In my opinion, treating the
question as one of intention, the testator has clearly shown on the face of the
will itself that what he meant by the Corporation of the University of Dublin
was the Corporation of Trinity College.
I am bound to give effect to that intention unless it is encountered by
some rule of law. I have already shown
at, I fear, too great length, that the phrase “Corporation of the University of
Dublin” has no such defined meaning as in a case like the present, excluding
all inquiry as to particular intention; and I have therefore no hesitation in
pronouncing a decree for the plaintiffs.
___________________
SCHEME SETTLED BY THE COURT
For the Regulation and Management of the Reid
Professorship and
Sizarship Charities, and the Funds and Property
thereof.
A.M. PORTER, M.R.
The 1592
Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth I establishing the College
(English
translation provided by the College.
The Letters Patent were written in Latin)
The College
refers to these Letters Patent as its “Charter” (March 3, 1592)
Elizabeth
by the Grace of God Queen of England, France and Ireland, Defender of the
Faith, etc., to all to whom these letters come greeting. Whereas our beloved subject Henry Ussher,
archdeacon of Dublin, has humbly petitioned us in the name of the city of
Dublin that since no College to instruct scholars in good letters and arts yet
exists within our kingdom of Ireland we would deign to erect, found and
establish a College, mother of a University, near the city of Dublin for the
better education, training and instruction of scholars and students in our
realm aforesaid, and also that provision should be made in a suitable manner
for the relief and support of a provost and some fellows and scholars, KNOW
that we, since we have a singular care for the training of the youth of our
kingdom of Ireland piously and liberally, and for the benevolence that we have
towards studies and students (that they the better be of service to learn good
arts and practise virtue and religion), graciously granting this pious
petition, of our special grace, and of certain knowledge, and of our mere will,
will, grant and ordain, for us, our heirs and successors, that there shall be a
College, the mother of a University, in a certain place called Allhallowes near
Dublin aforesaid, for the education, training and instruction of youths and
students in arts and faculties, to last for all future times, and that it shall
be called THE COLLEGE OF THE HOLY AND UNDIVIDED TRINITY NEAR DUBLIN FOUNDED BY
THE MOST SERENE QUEEN ELIZABETH. And by
these presents we erect, ordain, create, found and firmly establish that
College with a provost, three fellows in the name of many, and three scholars
in the name of many, to continue for ever.
And further
we make, ordain, constitute and licence Adam Loftus, D.D., archbishop of
Dublin, chancellor of our kingdom of Ireland, the first and present provost of
the aforesaid College of the holy and undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near
Dublin aforesaid. And we make, licence,
constitute and ordain by these presents Henry Ussher, M.A., Luke Challoner,
M.A., Lancellot Moine, B.A., the first and present fellows there in the name of
many. And we make, licence, constitute
and ordain by these presents Henry Lee, William Daniell, and Stephen White the
first and present scholars in the name of many.
And
further, of our more ample special grace, certain knowledge and mere will, we
will, ordain, grant and establish by these presents, for us, our heirs and
successors, that the aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars of Trinity College
aforesaid and their successors in matter, fact and name in future are and shall
be a body corporate and politic, for ever incorporated and erected, by the name
of THE PROVOST, FELLOWS AND SCHOLARS OF THE COLLEGE OF THE HOLY AND UNDIVIDED
TRINITY OF QUEEN ELIZABETH NEAR DUBLIN, and that in all future times they shall
be known, called and named by that name, and shall have perpetual succession,
and we incorporate the provost, fellows, scholars, and successors, or provosts,
fellows, scholars of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity of Queen
Elizabeth near Dublin, and we really and completely create, erect, ordain, make
constitute and firmly establish them by these presents a body corporate and
politic, to endure for ever by that name.
And that
the aforesaid intention may have better effect, and that they may for ever
possess goods, chattels, lands, tenements, hereditaments, rents, renders,
services and all other and singular profits, for the support and relief of the
provost, fellows and scholars of that College, and that they may be better
governed, and for the continuation of that College, we will, grant, ordain, and
decree for us, our heirs and successors, by the presents, that whenever and as
often as it shall happen that any provost in any manner be removed or cease to
be, by death, decease, resignation, deprivation, or in any other manner (then
and successively the aforesaid fellows and their successors then surviving or
the majority of them may elect and name a suitable provost within three months
next following.) And in the same way, if it happen that any of the aforesaid
fellows and scholars in any manner cease to be, or be removed, by death,
decease, resignation, deprivation, or in any other manner, then and
successively (the provost and the other fellows or their successors then
surviving) or the majority of them may well elect, name and constitute another
suitable person or persons in the place or places of the aforesaid fellow or
scholar, fellows or scholars (within two months next following, and so from
time to time,) as often as death, decease, resignation or deprivation shall
occur. And that each of them, so from
time to time elected, shall have and enjoy, and shall be able to have and enjoy
as full and free power and authority in all things, and to do, implement and
execute all and singular, as any other of the fellows of the aforesaid College
have in any manner, or can or ought to enjoy.
And that they and their successors by the name of the provost, fellows
and scholars of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity of Queen
Elizabeth near Dublin may and shall be persons able, apt, and capable in law of
acquiring, having, taking possession of, receiving and possessing manors,
lands, tenements and hereditaments whatsoever to them and their successors for
ever) so that they be not held of us, our heirs and successors, immediately in
chief, in demesne or service) as well from us, our heirs and successors, as
from any other person or person whatsoever, for the support and maintenance of
the aforesaid College, and for the relief and maintenance of the provost,
fellows and scholars of the aforesaid College.
And further,
of our more abundant grace, certain knowledge, and mere will, we grant and give
licence for us, our heirs and successors, to the aforesaid provost, fellows and
scholars and their successors, that they and their successors may and shall be
able to acquire, have, receive, take possession of and possess, by the name of
the provost, fellows and scholars of the College of the holy and undivided
Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin, manors, lands, tenements and
hereditaments whatsoever, and whatever be their nature, kind and species, (to
the annual value of forty pounds current money of England,) beyond all burdens
and reprises, to the proper business and use of the aforesaid provost, fellows
and scholars, and their successors, notwithstanding in any manner the statutes
of not putting lands and tenements in mortmain. And that they can and shall be able to prosecute, plead and be
impleaded, defend and be defended, answer and be answered by that name in all
and singular causes, plaints, and actions, real, personal and mixed, in all
courts, as well temporal as spiritual, within our kingdom of Ireland or
elsewhere; and to do, set in motion, and take possession of these and all
singular other things as, and in the same manner as, our other lieges, persons
able and capable in law, do and can do within our same kingdom of Ireland or
elsewhere, in all places and courts aforesaid, and before all our justices and
judges, or any of them.
And further
we will and ordain for us, our heirs and successors grant to the aforesaid
provost, fellows and their successors by the presents, that in future they
shall have for ever a common seal to be devoted to their business according to
the tenor and true intention of these our letters patents, as shall seem fit to
the provost and the majority of the fellows.
In addition we grant and give licence to the provost and fellows of that
College that they may from time to time for ever make, constitute and confirm
laws, statutes and ordinances for governing their College piously and faithfully,
and that they may establish among themselves whatsoever laws they consider well
constituted in our Academies of Cambridge or Oxford, as they shall judge them
apt and fitted to themselves. (And
especially that no one shall publicly profess or teach the liberal arts to any
others in places within the limits of our kingdom of Ireland without our
special licence.)
And whereas
it appears that certain degrees have been of assistance in the arts and
faculties, we ordain by these presents that the students in this College of the
holy and undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin shall have liberty
and power to obtain degrees of Bachelor, Master, and Doctor, at a suitable
time, in all arts and faculties. (This
always provided that when the fellows in this College have completed seven
whole years after assuming the degree of Master there, then they shall be
removed from the number of the fellows so that others chosen in their place
shall have the emolument for the benefit of this kingdom and of the church;)
and that they shall have liberty to perform among themselves all acts and
scholastic exercises for gaining such degrees, as shall seem fit to the provost
and the majority of the fellows, (and that they may elect, create, name and
ordain all persons for better promoting such things, whether Vice-Chancellor,
Proctor or Proctors), (for we have approved assignment of the dignity of
Chancellor to our most honoured and faithful councillor, William Cecil, Baron
Burghley, treasurer of all England): (and afterwards, when he shall cease to be
chancellor, we ordain that the provost and the majority of the fellows shall
elect a suitable person of this sort as chancellor of the College. And the
chancellor, or his vice-chancellor, with the archbishop of Dublin, the Bishop
of Meath, the vice treasurer, the treasurer for war, and the chief justice of
our chief place within this our kingdom of Ireland, the mayor of the city of
Dublin for the time being, or the majority of them who shall be called
visitors, shall break off and limit all contentions, actions and controversies
(which the provost and the majority of the fellows cannot settle), and that
they shall punish all the graver faults not amended by the provost and
fellows.)
Finally we
establish and ordain to encourage studies and students, so that our subjects
and officers may be encouraged to assist in the best establishment and
conservation of this College, that they may supply and administer those goods
with our grace and authority: and that all goods, chattels, things, lands,
tenements, hereditaments pertaining to the provost, fellows and scholars of the
said College, shall be from time to time in all future times, free and exempt
from all burdens, taxes, tallages, cesses, subsidies, exactions, compositions or
demands whatsoever, due or demanded to us, our heirs and successors, in any
manner, by reason of our prerogative or otherwise, as well in time of war as in
time of peace, notwithstanding any statute, act, ordinance, proclamation,
restriction, custom, use, law, prescription, or any other thing, cause or
matter whatsoever to the contrary of the premises in anything. In testimony whereof we have made these our
letters patents. Witness our beloved
and faithful councillor, William FitzWilliam, knight, our deputy general of our
kingdom of Ireland.
Dublin,
March 3, the 34th year of our reign.
[March 3,
1592]
PHILLIPS
Enrolled in the
patent roll of the chancery of Ireland November 14, the 37th year of the reign
of our lady Elizabeth, by the grace of God Queen of England, France and
Ireland, Defender of the Faith, etc, by me, James Newman, clerk to Anthony Sent
Leger, knight, master of the rolls of the court of chancery aforesaid.
The 1637
Letters Patent of King Charles I
(English translation
provided by the College. The Letters
Patent were written in Latin)
(May 25,
1637)
Charles by
the Grace of God King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the
Faith, etc. To all to whom these our
letters come, greeting. Whereas the
Lady Elizabeth, formerly Queen of England, by her letters patent under her
great seal of Ireland, dated at Dublin the third day of March in the 34th year
of her reign (recites those Clauses of the charter of Elizabeth founding the
College and creating the body corporate with a common seal and the power of
making statutes and conferring degrees).
We
approving all and singular recited above, with the alterations, additions and
declarations expressed later in these presents, and having goodwill in all
things, ratify and fully confirm them by the presents for us, our heirs and
successors, to the aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars and their
successors.
Whereas the
said late Queen by her letters patent ordained that the students in the said college
should have liberty and power to obtain degrees as well of bachelor as master
and doctor at suitable times in all arts and faculties, this however always
provided, that when the fellows of the college had completed seven whole years
after taking the degree of master, then they should be removed from the number
of fellows, so that others substituted in their place might have the emoluments
for the benefit of that kingdom and the church: We, wishing with the agreement of the said provost, fellows and scholars
to remove the said provision seeing that it is harmful not only to the students
and the college, but also indeed to the kingdom, confirm by these presents for
us, our heirs and successors, to the provost, fellows and scholars, and their
successors, the aforesaid liberty of obtaining degrees in all faculties by our
royal authority to the students of the aforesaid college for the time being,
absolutely, without this provision.
And whereas
the same late Queen by the same letters patent granted and gave licence to the
aforesaid provost and fellows of that college that they might from time to time
for ever make, constitute and confirm laws, statutes and ordinances to govern
their college piously and faithfully: and
that they might establish among themselves whatever laws they thought well
constituted to the universities of Cambridge or Oxford and judged apt and
suited to themselves: (we now wish to
reserve and continue to ourselves our heirs and successors for ever, with the
assent and consent of the provost, fellows and scholars, this power of
establishing and constituting statutes and ordinances previously granted to the
aforesaid provost and fellows of the said college as aforesaid).
And whereas
the provost and fellows then existing according to the power granted to them by
the late Queen Elizabeth made and established among themselves a body of
statutes for the government of the college which statutes now hold force in the
college; and it now appears that the aforesaid statutes were not and are not
sufficiently adapted to the good government of the said college; we therefore,
by the assent of the aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars of the said
college, will and declare by these presents that the same statutes are annulled
in all things; except that we ratify and confirm by the presents, for us, our
heirs and successors to the aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars of the said
college and their successors the augmentation made of the fellows of the
college from three to sixteen, and of the scholars of the college from three to
seventy, and the division of the aforesaid sixteen fellows into seven senior
fellows and nine junior fellows, and the commitment of the government of the
college to the provost and the majority of the senior fellows for the time
being by virtue of the same statutes.
And since
no society can long exist without statutes for its pious and faithful
government: therefore we of our special
grace have commanded the aforesaid statutes to be reviewed, and have secured
them thus corrected and given form, as can now be seen, and signed by our royal
hand, by the royal authority:
commanding the aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars of the said
college and their successors to obey these our statutes and not others for
ever, unless we, our heirs or successors, shall see fit to add, remove, or
change, or dispense with anything, notwithstanding these our statutes. And therefore we will and further command
that immediately after the receipt of these our statutes the provost and all
the fellows and scholars of the said college shall engage to observe these our
statutes; and each of them shall solemnly in the chapel before the visitors of
the college named by us in our statutes and below take the oath which we have
prescribed for his rank in our statutes; except that in the fellows’ oath we
grant, for this time only, to the fellows now existing, beneficed according to
the statutes which have obtained in the college up to this time, that this
clause may be omitted, ‘moreover I declare that I now possess no ecclesiastical
benefice’. We grant power and licence
to the visitors of the college to administer the oath on this occasion, and
after this occasion we grant to the provost and vice provost of the college for
the time being (when the provost shall have taken the oath himself) power by
these presents to administer all and singular oaths required and prescribed in
our statutes.
And because
various cases may arise all of which human prudence cannot foresee; we will,
and grant by the presents for us, our heirs and successors, to the aforesaid
provost, fellows and scholars of the said college and their successors; that
the provost and the majority of the (senior fellows) for the time being in
matters omitted (where nothing certain has been determined in our statutes) may
make new decrees and (ordinances), which are not repugnant to our statutes, and
have the consent of the visitors to the college, (who are named below); we will
and grant that they shall have binding force, under the penalties prescribed in
them; until (the occasion ceasing) it shall seem fit to the provost and (senior
fellows) or the majority of them, to rescind these decrees (and ordinances)
with the consent of the visitors.
And whereas
the aforesaid late queen by her said letters patent willed, granted, ordained
and decreed, for herself, her heirs and successors, that whenever and as often
as it happened that any provost was removed in any manner, whether by death,
resignation, deprivation, or in any other manner; that then and successively
the aforesaid fellows then surviving, or the majority of them, might elect and
name a suitable provost within three months next following: we, for the singular care which we have
towards the whole kingdom of Ireland, and especially towards the aforesaid
college, will and declare by the presents that this power, previously granted
to the fellows of the aforesaid college for the time being and their
successors, shall for ever, with the assent and consent of the same provost,
fellows and scholars, be reserved to us, our heirs and successors. And therefore we command that whenever and
in whatsoever manner the provostship of the said college shall happen to be
vacant, the vice provost for the time being, (or in his absence the most senior
fellow who shall be in the house) shall immediately notify the vacancy to the
chancellor of the aforesaid academy or university for the time being, and the
chancellor, without delay, shall announce it to us. During the vacancy, and until a new provost be named by us, our
heirs and successors, and admitted to the provostship in the said college, we
will that the vice provost for the time being shall undertake the care of the
government of the college, and shall take the place of the provost in all
things; (except in the distribution of chambers, all elections, demises of the
lands and tenements of the college to farm, and the making of whatsoever
instruments which are accustomed to be sealed with the college seal).
And whereas
the aforesaid late queen by her letters patent willed, granted and ordained for
herself, her heirs and successors, that if it happen that any of the aforesaid
fellows and scholars in any manner be removed, by death, resignation,
deprivation or in any other manner, then and successively the provost and the
other fellows or their successors then surviving, or the majority of them,
might elect, name and constitute another suitable person or persons, in the
place or places of the said fellow or scholar, fellows and scholars, within two
months next following; and so from time to time, as often as such death,
resignation, or deprivation should happen and that each of them, so from time
to time elected, should have and enjoy, and might and could have and enjoy, as
full and free power and authority in all things, and to do, implement and
complete all and singular, as any other of the fellows and scholars of the
aforesaid college in any manner ought to or could have or enjoy: we, wishing for certain causes to change the
aforesaid time of nomination, election and constitution of any fellow or
scholar of the aforesaid college t be nominated, elected and constituted in
future; of our special grace, certain knowledge and pure will, we will and
ordain and grant by the presents, for us, our heirs and successors, to the
aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars, and their successors: that whenever and as often as in future it
shall happen that any senior fellow shall cease to be of the number in any
manner, and be removed from it by death, resignation, deprivation or in any
other manner, then and successively the provost and the rest of the senior
fellows then surviving, or the majority, or an equal part of them for the time
being, together with the provost, may elect, name and constitute a suitable
person or persons in the place or places of the aforesaid senior fellow or
fellows within (a space of three days) from the vacancy’s being known. Likewise, if it happen that any of the
junior fellows or scholars in any manner be removed, by death, resignation,
deprivation, or in any other manner, then and successively (the provost and
senior fellows,) or the majority of them for the time being, together with the
provost, may elect, name and constitute another suitable person or persons in
the place or places of the aforesaid junior fellow or fellows, scholars and
scholars, on Monday after Trinity Sunday (next following,) according to our
statutes aforesaid provided in this case, and so from time to time whenever
death, resignation or deprivation shall happen; and that each of them so as
aforesaid elected to such place or places or provost, senior fellow, junior
fellow or scholar shall have and enjoy, and may have and enjoy as full and free
power and authority in all things, and to do, implement and complete all and
singular as the provost or any other senior fellow, junior fellow or scholar of
the said college for the time being now ought to or can have and enjoy,
according to the tenor of our aforesaid statutes in this case.
And whereas
the same late queen by her same letters patent, for herself, her heirs and
successors, for the support and maintenance of the aforesaid college, and for
the relief and support of the provost, fellows and scholars of the aforesaid
college, granted and gave licence to the aforesaid provost, fellows and
scholars, and their successors, that they and their successors might acquire,
have, receive and possess, by the name of the provost, fellows and scholars of
the college of the holy and undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin,
manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments whatsoever, whatsoever might be
their kind, nature or species, to the annual value of £40 current money of
England beyond burdens and payments, to the proper use of the aforesaid
provost, fellows and scholars and their successors, the statutes of not putting
lands and tenements in mortmain notwithstanding.
Know that
we, wishing to provide for the improvement and enlargement of the college, and
at the humble petition of our beloved and faithful councillor Thomas Viscount Wentworth,
our deputy general of our kingdom of Ireland, of our special grace and certain
knowledge and pure will, will and for us, our heirs and successors, by the
presents give leave to the provost, fellows and scholars and their successors: that they, the provost, fellows and scholars
and their successors, may acquire, take and receive manors, lands, tenements
and hereditaments whatsoever, of whatever kind, nature or species, as well from
us, our heirs and successors, as from any other person or persons whatsoever,
to the provost, fellows and scholars and their successors for ever to the
support and maintenance of the aforesaid college, and to the relief and support
of the provost, fellows and scholars of the same college and their successors
(in addition to the aforesaid manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments to the
annual value of £40 mentioned in the letters patent of the aforesaid late queen
as aforesaid). So however that the
manors, lands, tenements and hereditaments acquired by virtue of the presents
be not held of us, our heirs and successors, immediately in chief, in demesne,
or in service, or of us, our heirs and successors, or of any other person, by
knight service. (And also that they do
not exceed in total annual value £200 current money of England beyond all
burdens and payments,) the statutes of not putting lands and tenements in
mortmain, or any other statute, act, ordinance or provision to the contrary
thereof notwithstanding.
We grant further,
and give special licence by the presents, for us, our heirs and successors, to
all and singular persons whatsoever, that they, or any of them, may freely and
lawfully give, sell, alienate, bequeath, or grant to the aforesaid provost,
fellows and scholars, and their successors, manors, lands, tenements, and
hereditaments whatsoever (in addition to the aforesaid manors, lands, tenements
and hereditaments mentioned in the aforesaid letters patent of the said late
queen as aforesaid), as well of their own fee as of another, whether held of
us, our heirs or successors, or of any other person whatsoever, provided that
they be not held of us, our heirs and successors, immediately in chief, in
demesne or in service, or of us, our heirs or successors, or of any other
person by knight service: the aforesaid
statutes of not putting lands and tenements in mortmain, or any other statute,
act, ordinance, or provision to the contrary thereof notwithstanding. And this, without making, performing or
taking any inquisition, or inquisitions thereon returnable in our chancery by
pretext of any writ or command of us, our heirs and successors, of ad quod
damnum or any other writ, grant, command or precept. (So, however, that those manors, lands,
tenements and hereditaments do not exceed the annual value of £200 current
money of England (beyond all burdens and payments as aforesaid). Willing and firmly commanding for us, our
heirs and successors, that the aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars, and
their successors shall not by occasion of the premises, or any of them, be
impeached, disquieted, molested, or troubled in anything by us, our heirs and
successors, justices, escheators, sheriffs, or other bailiffs or ministers of
us, our heirs and successors.
(And we
will, and forbid by the presents, that anyone should publicly profess or teach
the liberal arts in other places within our kingdom of Ireland, without the
special licence of us, our heirs and successors, first had and obtained in that
behalf)
And that
all and singular the premises may be better cared for, of our special grace
towards the aforesaid college, we grant by the presents for us, our heirs and
successors, to the aforesaid provost, fellows and scholars: that (the provost and senior fellows) of the
aforesaid college for the time being, or the majority of them together with the
provost, shall in future for ever have licence and power to name, elect and
admit (a chancellor), proctors, and all other officers pertaining to the
aforementioned academy, but by this rule, that each of them so (as aforesaid)
elected together with the vice-chancellor of the aforesaid academy (to whom we
wish always to be chosen by the chancellor of the academy, whose place he
holds) shall engage under oath to exercise faithfully the office entrusted to
him. (The chancellor of the aforesaid
academy shall take the aforesaid oath before the chancellor or keeper of our
great seal of England, or before the chancellor of Ireland;) the vice-chancellor
before the chancellor of the academy, or in his absence (before the chancellor
of our kingdom of Ireland). The
proctors and the remaining officers of the academy aforesaid shall bind
themselves as above before the chancellor, or in his absence the vice-chancellor,
of that academy. All of whom, namely
(the chancellor or keeper of our great seal of England, the chancellor of our
kingdom of Ireland), the chancellor and vice-chancellor of the aforesaid
academy near Dublin for the time being, we strengthen with our royal authority
so that in the aforesaid cases they can and may lawfully administer the oath to
persons so (as aforesaid) elected.
And whereas
the aforesaid late queen by her said letters patent willed and ordained that
the chancellor of the aforesaid academy for the time being or his
vice-chancellor, with the archbishop of Dublin, the bishop of Meath, the
vice-treasurer, the treasurer at war, the chief justice of her chief place
within her kingdom of Ireland, and that mayor of the city of Dublin, for the
time being, or the majority of them, who shall be called visitors, should break
off and determine all quarrels, actions and controversies which the provost and
the majority of fellows could not settle:
and should punish all graver faults not corrected by the provost and
fellows: we, for certain causes
specially moving us in this matter, will, and by the presents ordain, for us,
our heirs and successors, with the assent of the provost, fellows and
scholars: that the chancellor of the
aforesaid academy, or in his absence his vice-chancellor for the time being,
(with the archbishop of Dublin for the time being), shall in future for ever be
the visitors of the aforesaid college, whom we fortify with our authority to
break off and determine all quarrels, actions and controversies which (for
provost and the majority of the senior fellows) for the time being cannot
settle: and that they may punish all
faults not corrected by the provost and senior fellows of the aforesaid
college: and this according to our
statutes for the government of that college.
Except that should the vice-chancellor of the academy and (the
archbishop of Dublin) disagree among themselves upon any matter in controversy,
or in any graver business whatsoever, we will that nothing shall be done at any
time without the approval of the chancellor of the aforesaid academy, or if it
be done, it shall be held invalid.
Finally, we
establish and command, for us, our heirs and successors, of our same grace,
that whatsoever assistance to the better constitution and conservation of the
college, as to the prosecution of studies, can be given by our deputy general
of our kingdom of Ireland, and all other subjects and officers for the time
being of us, our heirs or successors, shall be give and administered with our
good grace and authority. And that all
goods, chattels, things, lands, tenements and hereditaments pertaining to the
provost, fellows and scholars of the said college and their successors shall be
from time to time in all future times free and exempt from all burdens, taxes,
tallages, cesses, subsidies, exactions, compositions or demands whatsoever, as
well in time of war as in time of peace, due to or to be demanded by us, our
heirs and successors, by reason of our prerogative or otherwise; any statute,
act, ordinance, proclamation, restriction, custom, use, law, prescription, or
any other thing, causes or matter to the contrary of the premises in anything
notwithstanding; and notwithstanding that express mention of the true annual
value or of the particular premises or any of them, or of other gifts or grants
made by us or by any of our progenitors to the said provost, fellows and
scholars of the said college before this is not made in the presents: any
statute, act, ordinance, or provision, or any other thing, cause or matter
whatsoever to the contrary of the premises notwithstanding.
In
testimony whereof we have made these our letters patent, witness our aforesaid
deputy general of our kingdom of Ireland.
At Dublin, the 25th day of May, the 13th year of our reign [May 25,
1637].
CARLETON
Enrolled in the patent roll of the
chancery of Ireland, the 13th year of Charles.
Examined by me,
Chr. Wandesforde, Master of the
Rolls
The 1857
Letters Patent of Queen Victoria
(July 24,
1857)
LETTERS PATENT,
CONCERNING
THE CHANCELLOR, DOCTORS, AND MASTERS
OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN.
(21 VICT. – July 24, 1857)
__________
VICTORIA,
by the grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender
of the Faith, and soforth: - To all unto whom these presents shall come,
greeting.
Whereas we
are informed that the senate or congregation of the University of Dublin,
consisting of the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor, Doctors in the several faculties,
and Masters of Arts of the said University, has heretofore, for the last two
hundred years and upwards, been governed by certain rules or statutes,
entitled, “Regulae seu Consuetudines Universitatis Dubliniensis pro solenniore
graduum collatione”. And whereas our
right trusty and right entirely beloved councillor, John George, Archbishop of
Armagh, Primate of all Ireland, Chancellor of the said University; our right
trusty and well-beloved councillor, Francis Blackburne, Doctor of Laws,
Vice-Chancellor of the said University; and our trusty and well-beloved the
Provost and senior Fellows of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity,
near Dublin, have humbly represented unto us that the said rules or statutes
have, by lapse of time, become in many respects obsolete, and unsuited to the
present state of the said University and College, and doubts have been raised
as to whether the Provost and senior Fellows of the said College have power to
alter and amend the same; and the said Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, Provost,
and senior Fellows have therefore humbly supplicated us to remove the said
doubts, and to grant unto the said Provost and senior Fellows of the said
College, and also unto the senate or congregation of the said University, such
further powers as will enable them to revise, alter or repeal the said rules
and usages relating to the conferring of degrees by the said University, and to
enact other rules or regulations for the same purpose, to be binding and
obligatory on all members of the University: We are graciously pleased to
accede to their request; Know ye, therefore, that we, of our special grace,
certain knowledge, and mere motion, by and with the advice and consent of our
right trusty and well-beloved cousin and councillor George William Frederick,
Earl of Carlisle, our Lieutenant_General and General Governor of Ireland, do,
by these presents, for us, our heirs and successors, enact and confirm to the
Provost and senior Fellows of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity
aforesaid, and unto the Chancellor or Vice-Chancellor, Doctors and Masters of
the said University, all such powers, rights, and privileges as by the charters
and statutes of our royal predecessors to the Provost, Fellows, and Scholars of
the College of the holy and undivided Trinity aforesaid, or to the University
of Dublin aforesaid, have heretofore been given, granted or by usage and
prescription possessed, without any alteration or diminution whatsoever, save
as herein provided.
And it is
our will and pleasure that the Provost and senior Fellows of our said College
of the holy and undivided Trinity shall have power, if they shall think fit, to
alter, amend, and repeal all laws, rules, or bye-laws heretofore existing, for
the more solemn conferring of degrees by the senate of the University
aforesaid, and to make, enact, and enforce, from time to time, such additional
laws, rules and bye-laws, and to alter or vary the same for the like purpose,
as to them shall seem fit. Provided
always, that no such new laws, rules, or bye-laws, or emendations or
alterations or such existing laws, rules, or bye-laws, shall be of force or
binding upon the said University until they shall have received the sanction of
the senate of the same in congregation lawfully assembled.
And our
further will and pleasure is, that no law, rule or bye-law, or grace
whatsoever, for the conferring of degrees, or any other purpose, shall be
proposed to the senate, which has not been first proposed to and adopted by the
said Provost and senior Fellows of our said College. Provided, however, that it shall be in the power of the
Chancellor, or, in his absence, the Vice-Chancellor or Pro-Vice-Chancellor (to
be appointed as hereinafter mentioned) of the University to prohibit any such
intended law, rule, bye-law, or grace, from being proposed to the senate.
And our
further will and pleasure is, that in case the Vice-Chancellor of the
University shall be unable, from any cause, to attend any meeting of the
senate, he shall have power, by any writing under his hand and seal, to appoint
a person to act as Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the time being; and such person so
appointed shall, for such time, possess all the authority of the
Vice-Chancellor.
And our
further will and pleasure is, that the senate of the said University shall, as
heretofore, be constituted and consist of the Chancellor, or, in his absence,
of the Vice-Chancellor, or Pro-Vice-Chancellor for the time being, and such
Doctors and Masters of the University as shall have and keep their names on the
books of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity, in accordance with such
regulations and conditions as the Provost and senior Fellows of the said
College shall enact.
And our
further will and pleasure is, that the caput of the said senate shall consist,
as heretofore, of the Chancellor, or, in his absence, of the Vice-Chancellor,
or Pro-Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, the Provost of the said College, or, in
his absence, the Vice-Provost, and the senior Master non-regent elected by the
senate.
And our
further will and pleasure is, that the said senate shall be convened only by
the Chancellor of the said University, or in his absence, by the
Vice-Chancellor, or Pro-Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, each of whom, when
presiding therein, shall have power also, at his pleasure, to adjourn or
dissolve all meetings of the senate.
Provided only that on a requisition presented to him by the Provost and
senior Fellows, the Chancellor, or, in his absence, the Vice-Chancellor, or
Pro-Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, shall be bound to convene the senate, to meet
at such time, and for such purpose, as shall be stated in such requisition, and
the said Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, or Pro-Vice-Chancellor, as the case may
be, shall preside therein. And in case,
at any meeting whatsoever of the senate, there shall be an equality of lawful
votes upon any question proposed therein, such Chancellor, Vice-Chancellor, or
Pro-Vice-Chancellor so presiding therein shall have a casting vote, and the
side to which such casting shall be given shall be deemed to have the majority
of votes.
And whereas
the Provost and senior Fellows of the said College have heretofore, under and
by virtue of the statutes of our royal predecessors, possessed the exclusive right
and power of electing the Chancellor of the said University, but said Provost
and senior Fellows are willing that said power should in future be under the
control of the senate of the said University, as hereinafter provided: We
therefore, by and with the consent of the said Provost and senior Fellows, for
ourselves, our heirs and successors, enact, that in the event of a vacancy in
the office of Chancellor of said University by death, resignation, or
deprivation, it shall be lawful for the said Provost and senior Fellows, and
they are hereby directed, within one calendar month after such vacancy, to
propose to the senate of the said University the names of three persons from
amongst whom the said senate are to elect a successor to the office of Chancellor;
and the said senate shall, within one calendar month from the day of such
proposal, and at such time and place within said period, and in the said
College, as shall be appointed by the said Provost and senior Fellows, proceed
to elect a Chancellor from amongst the persons so proposed to them as
aforesaid, and such of said persons as, upon a scrutiny, shall have the
majority of lawful votes of the members of the senate then present shall be
declared to be the Chancellor of the said University. Provided, however, that in computing any of said periods the
interval between the 1st of July and 1st of October shall
not be reckoned or taken into account, nor shall any name be proposed as
aforesaid, or any such election take place or be held during said interval. And in the event of the senate of the said
University declining or omitting to elect a Chancellor within such period as
aforesaid, then our will and pleasure is, that the election and nomination of
the Chancellor of the University shall, for that time only, devolve upon us,
our heirs and successors.
And our
further will and pleasure is, that during the vacancy of the office of
Chancellor the Vice-Chancellor shall continue to hold his office, and shall
have power to convene the senate for the purpose of electing a Chancellor, and
shall, by himself, or the Pro-Vice-Chancellor as aforesaid, preside at the
election, and shall have authority to exercise all the functions and duties of
the Chancellor, until the election of the Chancellor. And immediately after such election the office of Vice-Chancellor
shall become ipso facto void until and fit and proper person be
appointed thereto by the Chancellor.
And our
will and pleasure further is, that the senate of the said University shall be,
and continue to be, a body corporate, and have a common seal, and shall have
power under the said seal to do all such acts as may be lawful for them to do
(in conformity with the laws and statutes of the realm, and with the charter
and statutes of the College of the holy and undivided Trinity, and with the
statutes, laws, and bye-laws made or to be made in pursuance of these our Royal
Letters), under the name, style, and title of the Chancellor, Doctors, and
Masters of the University of Dublin.
It shall be
further lawful for the said Chancellor, Doctors, and Masters to apply the funds
which may or shall belong to the said University senate, for the promotion of
useful learning in the said University, subject to such regulations as the
Provost and senior Fellows of our said College shall approve of or prescribe.
And it
shall be lawful for the said Chancellor, Doctors, and Masters of the said
University, in their corporate capacity as aforesaid, to have, hold, acquire,
and receive such lands, manors, tenements, or other property, real or personal,
as may, from the date of these presents, be given or bequeathed unto them, by
any person whatsoever, for the encouragement of learning in the said
University. Provided also, that such
gift or bequest does not impose any condition or obligation inconsistent with
the statutes of the said University in force at the time of such gift or
bequest, or inconsistent with the charters and statutes of the College of the
holy and undivided Trinity, near Dublin.
And we do
hereby, for us, our heirs and successors, grant and declare that these our
Letters Patent, or the enrolment or exemplification hereof, shall be in all
things good, firm, valid and effectual in the law, according to the true intent
and meaning of the same, and shall be taken, construed, and adjudged in all our
courts or elsewhere in the most favourable and beneficial sense, and for the
best advantage of the said College, any mis-recital, non-recital, omission,
defect, imperfection, matter or thing whatsoever, to the contrary thereof in
anywise notwithstanding. Provided
always that these our Letters Patent be enrolled in the rolls of our High Court
of Chancery in that part of our said United Kingdom called Ireland, within the
space of six months next ensuing the date of these presents. In witness whereof we have caused these our
Letters to be made Patent.
Witness
George WILLIAM FREDERICK, Earl of Carlisle, our Lieutenant-General and General
Governor of Ireland, at Dublin, the twenty-fourth day of July, in the twenty-first
year of our reign.
[Locus
Sigilli]
JOHN
O’ CONNELL,
Clerk
of the Crown and Hanaper.
Enrolled in
the office of the rolls of her Majesty’s High Court of Chancery in Ireland, the
eighth day of August, one thousand eight hundred and fifty-seven.
JOHN
REILLY.
MY APPLICATION TO THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
UNDER ARTICLE 34 OF THE CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND
FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS
(December 2007)
On December
18, 2007 I sent to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, by courier
post, an application under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
Parts II,
III, IV and V of my Application to the European Court of Human Rights are available
for viewing/downloading. Click on the
name of the Part to open or save that Part of my Application.
Articles 34
of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
gives “any person…claiming to be the victim of a violation by one of the High
Contracting Parties [i.e. one of the signatory States] of the rights set forth
in the Convention” the right to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. Article 34 also prevents the Republic of
Ireland and the other signatory States from “hinder[ing] in any way the
effective exercise of this right”.
According to Article 35 of the Convention “all domestic [i.e.
state-level] remedies” must be “exhausted” before the applicant can apply to
the European Court of Human Rights and the application must be made “within
a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken”.
The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms can be read by clicking here.
The Irish Act supposedly ‘incorporating’ the Convention into domestic lawis irrelevant because Section 1(1) of that Act specifically excludes the Irish courts and the extent of the ‘incorporation’ is, moreover, “subject to [i.e. limited by] any [i.e. every] statutory provision…or rule of law” (Section 3(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003).
If an Irish Court has violated a person’s Convention rights this Irish Act does not provide (and was obviously never intended to provide) a domestic remedy.
MY COMPLAINT
AGAINST MS ENDA FULHAM UNDER TRINITY COLLEGE’S POLICY ON BULLYING
On November 18, 2007 I wrote a note
listing the “specific instances” of bullying by Ms Enda Fulham, a
Practice Teacher with the social work department at Trinity College and the
then Director of the HSE Risk Assessment & Consultation Service,
Palmerstown, Dublin 20. (Ms Fulham is,
I understand, now the Director of the Ballydowd Special Care Unit, Palmerstown,
Dublin 20.)
This note was written as an aide mémoire for my Supreme Court
hearing.
Click here
to read a copy of my note
on the “specific instances” of bullying by Ms Enda Fulham.
A. My notes on the Pre Assessment
Meeting with S.C. (April
1, 2003)
B. My notes, as a Project Worker to
S.C., of my first session with S.C. (April
2, 2003)
C. My notes of my second session with
S.C. (April
8, 2003)
D. The transcript of my third session
with S.C., which was recorded on audiotape
(April
11, 2003)
E. Points “For Discussion at
Supervision” (April
8, 2003)
F. Reflective learning exercise
completed for Practice Teacher (March
20, 2003)
G. Note written at the request of the
Practice Teacher on “INTER-PROFESSIONAL ASPECT OF SERVICE” (March
3, 2003)
H. An “outline plan” for interviewing
the mother of one of the young people (“J.K.”) referred to the Service (April
3, 2003)
I.
My notes on the
interview with the mother of J.K. (April
3, 2003)
J. A “process recording exercise”
completed for the Practice Teacher (April
3, 2003)
K. My notes of my discussion on A.K.
with the social worker at the Service (April
7, 2003)
L. My notes on the Pre Assessment
Meeting with A.D. (February 24,
2003)
M. Notes of my first session, in the
role of Project Worker, with A.D. (March
7, 2003)
N. My second session with A.D. (March
11, 2003)
O. The third session with A.D. (March
14, 2003)
P. My fourth session with A.D. (March
19, 2003)
Q. The first version of the Project
Worker Report I wrote on A.D. for the Assessment Review Meeting. This was
rejected by the Practice Teacher and I was told to rewrite the Project Worker
Report to reflect the Practice Teacher’s views and ‘prior experience’ at the
Service (March
24, 2003)
R. The second version of the Project
Worker Report I wrote on A.D. for the Assessment Review Meeting (March
25, 2003)
THE
“VISITORIAL SYSTEM” AT DUBLIN’S TRINITY COLLEGE AND MY APPEAL TO THE VISITORS
OF TRINITY COLLEGE
MY WORK
AS A SOCIAL WORK STUDENT AT TRINITY COLLEGE
I have decided to include the
assignments I wrote when I was a social work student at Trinity College –
A.
My Social
Policy assignment
B.
My Family
and Child Law assignment
C.
My Equality
Studies assignment
D.
My Dissertation
Proposal
E.
My Child
Observation Study
F.
My Social
Policy Presentation (Handout for Students)
G.
My Social
Policy Presentation (OHP Slides)
JUDICIAL REVIEW APPLICATION
Patrick Kelly v. the Visitors of the College of the
Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen Elizabeth near Dublin
High Court Record Number 2005/1311 JR
“No application for judicial review
shall be made unless the leave of the Court has been obtained in accordance
with this rule”.
(a) a notice in Form No. 13 in Appendix T
containing a statement of:
(i) the name, address and description of the applicant,
(ii) the relief sought and the grounds upon which it is sought,
(iii) the name and registered place of business of the applicant's solicitors
(if any), and
(iv) the applicant's address for service within the jurisdiction (if acting in
person); and
(b) an affidavit which verifies the facts relied on”.
On December
15, 2005 High Court judge Henry Abbott refused my application for Judicial
Review. I appealed to the Supreme Court against this refusal and the case
was mentioned at the Supreme Court on December 16, 2005 in accordance with what
is called the ‘4-day rule’. As required by the Rules of the Superior
Courts I lodged 5 copies of my “Books of Appeal” at the Supreme Court Office on
December 19, 2005.
I have
included:
APPEALING TO THE SUPREME COURT (EX PARTE
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW)
Patrick
Kelly v. the Visitors of the College of the Holy and Undivided Trinity of Queen
Elizabeth near Dublin
My Supreme
Court appeal number is 442/2005. On December 19, 2005 I completed the
‘Certificate of Readiness’ at the Supreme Court Office. The purpose of a
‘Certificate of Readiness’ is to “confirm and certify that clear and legible
sets of ALL necessary documents have now been lodged in the Supreme Court
Office, and that the appeal is now ready to be heard in the Supreme
Court”.
Legal Submission to the Supreme Court – First
Supplement
IN JULY
2007 I LODGED A SUPPLEMENT
TO MY LEGAL SUBMISSION TO THE SUPREME COURT OFFICE AND APPLIED TO THE CHIEF
JUSTICE FOR PRIORITY STATUS FOR MY APPEAL.
ON JULY 31, 2007 I WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE APPEAL HEARING WOULD TAKE PLACE
ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 12, 2007.
Legal Submission to the Supreme Court – Second
Supplement
I WROTE A
SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO MY LEGAL SUBMISSION ON OCTOBER 14, 2007.
CLICK HERE
TO READ THAT SECOND
SUPPLEMENT (PDF). IT IS ALSO
AVAILABLE AS AN RTF FILE BY CLICKING HERE.
THE INDEX TO THE
BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR MY SECOND SUPPLEMENT CAN BE READ BY CLICKING HERE. CLICK HERE FOR
THE INDEX AS AN RTF FILE.
Legal Submission to the Supreme Court – Third
Supplement
CLICK HERE
TO READ MY THIRD
SUPPLEMENT (OCTOBER 16, 2007) AS A PDF FILE. THE VERSION IN THE RTF
FILE FORMAT CAN BE READ BY CLICKING HERE.
THE INDEX
TO THE BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR MY THIRD SUPPLEMENT IS AVAILABLE AS BOTH A PDF FILE
AND AN RTF
FILE.
Legal Submission to the Supreme Court – Fourth
Supplement
MY FOURTH
SUPPLEMENT TO MY LEGAL SUBMISSION (OCTOBER 21, 2007) CAN BE READ BY
CLICKING HERE
(PDF). IT IS ALSO PROVIDED IN THE RTF
FILE FORMAT.
FOR THE INDEX TO THE
BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR THE FOURTH SUPPLEMENT CLICK HERE
(PDF) OR HERE
(RTF).
Legal Submission to the Supreme Court – Fifth
Supplement
CLICK HERE
FOR MY FIFTH
SUPPLEMENT TO MY LEGAL SUBMISSION (DATED NOVEMBER 3, 2007) AS A PDF FILE
AND HERE
FOR IT IN THE RTF FILE FORMAT.
FOR THE
INDEX TO THE BOOK OF AUTHORITIES FOR THIS FIFTH SUPPLEMENT CLICK HERE
(PDF) OR HERE
(RTF).
Legal Submission to the Supreme Court – Sixth
Supplement
FOR THE PDF
FILE, PLEASE CLICK HERE. FOR THE RTF FILE, CLICK HERE.
THE INDEX
TO THE BOOK OF AUTHORITIES CAN BE VIEWED BY CLICKING HERE (PDF)
OR HERE
(RTF).
DECEMBER 12, 2007
SUPREME COURT HEARING
My appeal against the order dated December 15, 2005 of the High Court judge, Henry Abbott, refusing me leave to apply for judicial review was listed “For Hearing” at the Supreme Court on Wednesday, December 12, 2007. The hearing took place in the Hugh Kennedy Courtroom in the Four Courts. Mr Justice Fennelly, Mrs Justice Macken and Mr Justice Finnegan were the judges of the Supreme Court assigned my case.
A copy of my speaking
notes for December 12, 2007 are available in the PDF file format by
clicking here
and in the Microsoft Word format by clicking here.
A copy of a
note
I wrote for use at the Supreme Court (in case I was asked what kind of
“visitorial system” Trinity College would have, if any, if I were given leave
to apply for judicial review and if the “relief sought” in the judicial review
application were granted) can be read by clicking here
(PDF) or here
(Microsoft Word).
DECEMBER 14, 2007
THE SUPREME COURT
JUDGES THROW OUT MY CASE
Click here to
read a copy of their judgement.
With the domestic remedies exhausted, I was at
that point free to apply to the European Court of Human Rights. My application to the European Court of
Human Rights is dated December 15, 2007.
January – August 2008
MY COMPLAINT TO THE GARDA SIOCHANA OMBUDSMAN
COMMISSION AGAINST GARDA SARGEANT DAN MURPHY OF THE BRIDEWELL GARDA STATION, CHANCERY
STREET, DUBLIN 7
GSOC complaint reference number Y3760/08
On January
21, 2008 the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission received a complaint from me
against Garda Sergeant Dan Murphy of The Bridewell Garda Station, Chancery
Street, Dublin 7.
On January
19, 2008 I wrote to Sergeant Murphy “to formally notify [him] of my intention
to refer a complaint against [him] to the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission”.
Click here
to read a copy of my letter
to Sergeant Murphy.
My
complaint is described in an affidavit
I wrote for the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission in January 2008.
Click here
to read or download a copy of my affidavit
in the PDF file format.
My affidavit
is also available in the RTF file format by clicking here.
The Garda
Siochana also received an affidavit
from my mother, Josephine Nolan. She
had witnessed the “behavior” of Sergeant Murphy.
My
mother’s affidavit can be read or downloaded in the PDF or RTF file
formats.
Click here
for the PDF file or here
for the RTF file.
The letter
I received from the Garda Siochana Ombudsman Commission “acknowledg[ing]
receipt” of my complaint can be read or downloaded by clicking here.
Click here to
read or download a copy of the Garda
Siochana (Discipline) Regulations 2007.
Click here to
read or download a copy of the Garda
Siochana Act 2005.
Outcome:
In a letter
dated August 20, 2008 – but not delivered until August 25, 2008 – I was
informed of the following by Ms Mary Durack, a “Case Officer” at the Garda
Siochana Ombudsman Commission:
“The Garda
Ombudsman has determined that the behavior alleged is not of such a nature that
it would, if proved, amount to a breach of Garda discipline as provided for in
Schedule 5 of the Garda Siochana Act 2005.
On this basis your complaint is inadmissible.
In
accordance with Section 88(1)(c) of the Act the Garda Ombudsman will take no
further action in relation to this complaint.
The Garda Commissioner and the member concerned will be notified of this
decision”.
Ms Durack’s
letter, incidentally, quoted a different reference number for the
complaint: 413760-01-08.
So there
you have it: this “behavior” – even if
proved – is not, in the opinion of the Garda Ombudsman, “of such a nature that
it would…amount to a breach of…discipline…”!
If such
“behavior” is not a “breach of…discipline” than nothing is.
AT THE DATE
OF MY ENROLLMENT AS A POSTGRADUATE SOCIAL WORK STUDENT AT TRINITY COLLEGE THE
COURSE DID NOT HOLD “THE STATUS OF ACCREDITED OR PRELIMINARY ACCREDITED COURSE”
IN SOCIAL WORK
According
to Section D10 of the Handbook of Accreditation Standards and Procedures for
Courses Leading to the National Qualification in Social Work (NQSW) Award,
published by the National Social Work Qualifications Board: “The status of NQSW shall apply to all
students who earned their qualification on a course which held at the date of
the student’s enrollment the status of accredited or preliminary accredited
course”.
The
students who enrolled on the postgraduate social work course at Trinity College
in 2002, of which I was one, were enrolling on a new course. At “the date” of our “enrollment” the course
did not, however, hold “the status of accredited or preliminary accredited
course”. The course did not obtain this
“status” until several months later.
And yet the students who completed the course were put forward for, and
received “the status of NQSW”.
On February
27, 2006 I wrote to the Freedom of Information Officer at Trinity College about
this (February
27, 2006).
I also
wrote to the Director and the Chairperson of the National Social Work
Qualifications Board (February
27, 2006); why, I asked, “were the students on the postgraduate social work
course at Trinity College whose date of ‘enrollment’ preceded the preliminary
accreditation of the course – i.e. the students who enrolled in
September/October 2002 – awarded the National Qualification in Social Work
(NQSW) in 2004?”
THE
“DIFFERENCE OR DISTINCTION” BETWEEN THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN AND TRINITY
COLLEGE DUBLIN
Columns 18 to 21:
Senator Norris, a Senator representing the
Trinity College constituency in the Irish Senate and an employee of Trinity
College, comments on “the relationship between the University of Dublin and
Trinity College”. He quotes a judgement of the High Court of Justice of
Ireland, which he describes as “the only reserved judgment of the Irish
Superior Courts dealing with the relationship between Trinity College Dublin,
the University of Dublin and the Senate of the University of Dublin”, i.e. that
there is “no difference or distinction between the University of Dublin and
Trinity College Dublin”.
Columns 31 to
34: The Irish Senate votes to suspend Senator
Norris for “disorderly” conduct. Senator Norris was attempting to prevent
another Senator, Senator Dardis, from speaking on the amendment Senator Dardis
moved regarding Trinity College’s Private Bill. The amendment was:
“In page 3, lines 8 and 9, to delete ‘‘AND THE UNIVERSITY OF DUBLIN ARE’’ and
substitute ‘‘IS’’ ”. The word “ARE” in the Bill implied that Trinity
College and the University of Dublin are separate and distinct (they are, in
fact, the same thing). The Senators representing the Trinity College
constituency (David Norris, Mary Henry and Shane Ross) did not want the
amendment passed; Mary Henry, for example, described the amendment as
“humiliating” to the College (column 24). The College likes to maintain
the fiction of a “difference or distinction” between the University of Dublin
and Trinity College because this has proved to be quite useful and continues to
be quite useful to the College.
Columns 9 to
11: The senior counsel for the College refers
to the Trinity College Visitors
Columns 14 to
34: The evidence of the Provost of the
College.
Column 32 and 33:
A very important exchange
between the Provost and a member of the Committee, Deputy O’Malley, on the
visitorial system at Trinity College. For instance:
Deputy O’Malley:
“The
process is not sufficiently independent that one should rely on it so heavily
as the Provost does”.
Dr
Mitchell: “It has
served the college well”.
Deputy O’Malley:
“I am sure
it has. Has it served the public interest which is what it is intended to
serve?”
Column
33: The Provost states:
“…the Chancellor has no connection with
Trinity College because it is a separate entity from the University of Dublin
and he is associated with the University of Dublin. This is an argument into
which we should not get too deeply because it tends to be complicated and
confusing”.
The
Provost was, of course, misleading the Committee.
Column
34: The Provost contradicts what he
said at column 33:
“…Trinity College and the University
of Dublin are one and the same”.
Column
19: Trinity College’s senior counsel
‘snows’ the Committee:
“It is almost as if
we have a Trinity of two beings. Since Trinity was incorporated in 1592
there also has been a University of Dublin. There is almost a form of
symbiotic mystical relationship between them. It has puzzled commentators
for centuries”.
[To
‘snow’ is to “mislead…with elaborate and insincere words”, according to the
Concise Oxford English Dictionary]
Column
30: Regarding the relationship between the
University of Dublin and Trinity College Dublin, Deputy O’Malley observes:
“Listening to what
was said about the relationship it occurred to me that the relationship between
the University of Dublin and Trinity College is something akin to the
relationship between the IRA and Sinn Fein. They are all the one on the
days that it suits them. They are quite different on other days when it
suits them”.
Column
3: Michael Gleeson confirms, in his
sworn evidence to the Committee, that he is “Secretary to the Board” of Trinity
College.
It is also worth reading the transcript to see
what the College, and the senior counsel for the College, say about the
relationship between Trinity College and the University of Dublin
Column
931: Senator Ryan points out: “The
merest criticism of Trinity College provokes its Senators beyond
endurance. We are not allowed to criticise Trinity College – it is above
criticism. It is anachronistic and as long as 80 percent of its funds
comes from the taxpayers, the Houses of the Oireachtas [Parliament] are
entitled to talk about it in whatever language we wish”.
Senator Norris revealingly
replies: “As long as it is complimentary”.
The short title of this Private Act of the
Irish Parliament, in itself, reveals the nature of the changes the College had
to make to its original Bill. The Private Bill, when first introduced by
the College in 1997, had the following short title: “The
Trinity College, Dublin and the University of Dublin (Charters and Letters
Patent Amendment) Bill”. The reference to “the University of Dublin” is
absent from the short title of the Act.
INSTRUMENTAL CONFUSION
In 1991
Trinity College published Trinity College Dublin and the Idea of a
University, a book edited by C.H. Holland, Professor of Geology and
Mineralogy at Trinity College; in chapter 4, ‘Responsibility: the
administrative framework’. Aidan Clarke, Professor of Modern History at Trinity
College, referred to the “relationship” between the University of Dublin and
Trinity College:
“The precise nature of the relationship between
the two has long served as an intellectual pleasure garden for the
legalistically inclined, but the insolubility of the problem and the innocent amusement
it affords should not be allowed to disguise the fact that the confusion has
been instrumental in fashioning the way in which Trinity is presently governed”
(p.90).
The
“confusion” is indeed “instrumental” to the present governance of the College.
Click here to
read the excerpt as scanned from
the book.
J.V. LUCE’S BOOK ON TRINITY COLLEGE
In 1992
Trinity College published a book written by Professor J.V. Luce, Trinity
College Dublin: The First 400 Years. According to the then Provost’s [T.N.
Mitchell’s] foreword, Luce is a “Scholar and Fellow” of the College and has
“long and distinguished service in a variety of posts [in the College],
including those of Senior Tutor, Public Orator, Senior Dean, and Vice-Provost”
(p.vii).
Luce points
out that in 1613 King James I “allowed” Trinity College “parliamentary
representation on the grounds that [quoting James I] ‘it is called a College
and considered to be a University’ ” (p.4).
Luce notes
that that Letters Patent of Queen Elizabeth I establishing the College in 1592
provided for “a Court of seven Visitors” (p.4) but that the Letters Patent of
King Charles I in 1637 “reduced [this] to two – the Chancellor and the [Church
of Ireland] Archbishop of Dublin”.
The Irish
patriot Robert Emmet was expelled as a student of Trinity College in 1798 by
the Visitors of the College in a “purge…of United Ireland sympathizers” (p.67),
a “visitation” that even Luce describes as “notorious”.
In 1843 a
student of the College, Denis Caulfield Heron, “appealed to the Visitors, who
at first refused to hear his appeal, but were later directed to do so by the
High Court” (p.94). This demonstrates
that the Visitors, as a quasi-judicial tribunal created by public law, are
subject to judicial review.
THE RESPECTIVE ROLES OF CHANCELLOR AND PROVOST
Trinity
College has both a Chancellor and a Provost.
Mary Robinson is the Chancellor and John Hegarty is the current
Provost.
The
Chancellor “acts as head of the university on ceremonial occasions” (Chapter
II, Section 1 of the College Statutes) and is the “primary” Visitor (Chapter
II, Section 2 of the College Statutes).
The
Provost, according to the College Statutes, is “the Head of
the College, and shall be entitled to the authority and respect appropriate to
that position” (Chapter IV, Section 1 of the College Statutes).
The College
describes its Chancellor as “Chancellor of the University of Dublin”. As the Reid case shows, however, there is no
“difference or distinction” between the University of Dublin and Trinity
College: the “Chancellor of the
University of Dublin” is the Chancellor of Trinity College.
The role of
the Chancellor of the College does not overlap with the role of the Provost of
the College. In an article in the Irish
Times newspaper on March 10, 2001 David Norris, one of the three senators
representing the Trinity College constituency in the Irish Senate and an
employee of the College (he is a lecturer), wrote that the Provost of Trinity
College is “the equivalent of the chief executive of a small corporation”
(p.9). To use Norris’s “corporation” analogy,
the Chancellor is the chairperson of the corporation.
The
Chancellor is the chairperson of the “corporation” (Trinity College) and the
Provost is its “chief executive”.
THE
VISITORIAL SYSTEM AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS
In 1999 the
then Education Secretary in England “was warned the visitor system [in English
universities] would not survive” a challenge under “the Human Rights Act”, i.e.
the Act incorporating into English domestic law the Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (‘Visiting time’, an
article by Donald MacLeod in the Guardian newspaper dated May 14,
2003). The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and
Skills, Ivan Lewis, admitted: "there is a problem with the role of
visitors and whether that prevents people's ability ultimately to go to court…”
[Official Report, House of Commons Standing Committee H, February 12, 2004;
col. 93.]. This led to the removal in England of the jurisdiction of
university visitors over student complaints.
In the
Republic of Ireland, entrenched constitutional rights mean that the decisions
of university visitors in respect of student complaints are subject to judicial
review.
Nevertheless,
Article 6.1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Fundamental Freedoms would be relevant in the event of an appeal to the
European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. I intend to appeal to the
European Court of Human Rights if the Irish Supreme Court does not give me leave
to apply for judicial review in the Irish Courts or if the Irish Courts dismiss
the application. According to Article
6.1 of the Convention:
“In
the determination of his civil rights and obligations…everyone is entitled to a
fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and
impartial tribunal established by law”.
The Trinity
College Visitors are obviously not “an independent and impartial
tribunal”.
C.P. SNOW
Charles
Clarke, the then Secretary of State for Education and Skills in England, told
the House of Commons in 2004 that “the often archaic arrangements with
so-called visitors” were “more appropriate to the novels of C.P. Snow than to
modern university life” [Official Report, House of Commons, January 27, 2004;
Vol. 417, c. 167.]. The “university
life” depicted in the novels of C.P. Snow, or Charles Percy Snow (1905-1972),
is the opposite of “modern”; it is the type of “university life” aped at
Trinity College, Dublin.
Click here to
read some pertinent excerpts from “the novels
of C.P. Snow”.
MY ACCESS
REQUEST IN JANUARY 2006 UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE DATA PROTECTION ACTS 1988 AND
2003
In January
2006 I made an access request to Trinity College for “personal data” covering
the period March 2005 to January 2006.
One of the items released is a
computer printout of an e-mail sent by Mr Michael Nowlan, an employee of
Trinity College, on November 17, 2005 to a Mr Colm McCarthaigh. In this e-mail Mr Nowlan states that my
website “on geocities.com” contains “potentially libelous or defamatory
material about some Trinity people and others who have a peripheral
relationship with TCD [Trinity College Dublin]”.
Mr Nowlan, in this e-mail to Mr
McCarthaigh, continues: “TCD [Trinity
College Dublin] are proposing to look for an injunction against the person [Patrick
Kelly]…”.
Mr Nowlan then refers to “impending
action”, i.e. the “injunction against” me.
Another the
items released is a computer printout of a letter dated December 2, 2005 from
the Assistant Secretary to the Board of the College, Ms Anne Fitzgerald, to
both the President of the Students Union and the President of the Graduate
Students Union.
Ms
Fitzgerald asks the President of the Students Union and the President of the
Graduate Students Union “to be vigilant in ensuring that Mr Kelly does not use
your bulletin boards again to advertise the web address of the new site”.
Click here to
read a printout of that e-mail.
Another of
the items released is a computer printout of an e-mail dated May 5, 2005 from
Mr Daithi MacSithigh, a member of the Board of Trinity College, to Mr Michael
Gleeson, Secretary to the Board of Trinity College.
In this
e-mail Mr MacSithigh accuses me of ‘misrepresenting’ the “European Convention
on Human Rights”, the “Freedom of Information Act”, the “Equal Status Act”,
“the [Irish] Constitution”, the “College Statutes” and the “Data Protection
Act”.
Click here
to read a printout of Mr
McSithigh’s e-mail to Mr Gleeson (May 5,
2005)
Another of
the items released is a computer printout of an e-mail dated December 2, 2005
from the Assistant Secretary to the Board of the College, Ms Anne Fitzgerald,
to FortuneCity, the web hosting service for my website
(members.fortunecity.com/trinitycollegevisitors).
This e-mail
represents an attempt by the College to compel the web hosting service to
“remove” my website from its “server”.
The College
was successful in its efforts to compel FortuneCity to “remove” the website.
Another of the items released is a
computer printout of an email dated December 2, 2005 from me to Mr Michael
Gleeson, the Secretary to the Board of the College. There is a handwritten note on the printout; this handwritten
note states: “The site [my website] is
still up and he appears to have 2 on the go”.
This handwritten note was written by an unidentified employee of Trinity
College.
Click here
to read a copy of that handwritten note.
One of the
items released is a printout of an e-mail dated April 4, 2005 from Patricia
Callaghan, an employee of Trinity College, to the Secretary to the Board of
Trinity College, Michael Gleeson. In
the e-mail Ms Callaghan informs Mr Gleeson that she has attached to the e-mail
“some notes on the issues raised by Mr Kelly’s recent e-mail
correspondence”. I possess a printout
of the e-mail attachment, which was sent in Microsoft Word format.
The
attachment to the e-mail is titled: “Notes for College Secretary on e-mail
correspondence from Mr Patrick Kelly”.
The attachment was written by Ms Callaghan and “E. Hayes” and is dated
April 4, 2005.
Regarding
my e-mail “of 20th March 2005 21.28” Ms Callaghan and “E. Hayes” claim
that “it has been confirmed that the Masters in Social Work examinations
are marked anonymously, and that this practice was in place in 2003/04”. I was a student at Trinity College in the
2002/03 academic year.
Regarding
my e-mail “of 20th March 2005 21.28” Ms Callaghan and “E. Hayes” go
on to claim that “it is not appropriate to confirm the statements in the
[Trinity College] Calendar and on the [Trinity College] website as they stand
on their own merits and do not require further confirmation”.
Regarding
my e-mail “of 20th March 2005 22.42” Ms Callaghan and “E. Hayes”
claim that “it would not be appropriate to respond to Mr Kelly by analyzing…in
the way he is suggesting” the “regulations regarding plagiarism”.
One of the items released is a
computer printout of an e-mail dated May 4, 2005 from Patrick Kelly to Michael
Gleeson, Secretary to the Board of Trinity College.
There is a handwritten note on this
printout. The handwritten note is a
draft of an e-mail subsequently sent to me by Mr Gleeson.
In the handwritten note, the
following words appear in brackets after the word “University”: “a separate
legal entity”. A line was later drawn
through the words “a separate legal entity”, so that, in context, they now
appear in the handwritten note as follows:
“..the
University (a separate legal entity)…”.
In its original form this part of
the handwritten note would have read:
“…the
University (a separate legal entity)…”.
The “University”
is not “a separate legal entity”, however.
Perhaps that it why Mr Gleeson had second thoughts about including these
words in the e-mail he sent to me.
The words
“a separate legal entity” were removed from the version sent to me.
A scanned
copy of Mr Gleeson’s handwritten draft can be read by clicking here.
.
One of the
items released is a computer printout of an e-mail dated December 5, 2005 from
the Assistant Secretary to the Board of the College, Ms Anne Fitzgerald, to Pro
Hosting, the web hosting service for my website (tcdv.white.prohosting.com).
This e-mail
represents an attempt by the College to compel the web hosting service to
“remove” my website from its “server”.
The College
was successful in its efforts to compel Pro Hosting to “remove” the website.
One of the
items released is a computer printout of an e-mail dated December 5, 2005 from
the Assistant Secretary to the Board of the College, Ms Anne Fitzgerald, to
Zero Catch, the web hosting service for my website
(www.trinitycollegevisitors.0catch.com).
This e-mail
represents an attempt by the College to compel the web hosting service to
“remove” my website from its “server”.
Ms
Fitzgerald sent Zero Catch a further e-mail on December 12, 2005; in this
e-mail she complains that “the site is still live” and states that if my
website is not removed from the “server” the College “will be forced to
consider taking legal action”.
One of the
items released is a computer printout of an e-mail dated November 24, 2005 from
the Assistant Secretary to the Board of the College, Ms Anne Fitzgerald, to the
President of the Students Union at Trinity College.
In this
e-mail Ms Fitzgerald asks the President of the Students Union “to remove the
message” I had placed on the message board “from your website without
delay”.
In this
e-mail Ms Fitzgerald refers to “the risk of legal liability to you [the
President of the Students Union]…”.
Mr
Fitzgerald refers to “the risk of legal liability…to the College…”.
Ms
Fitzgerald refers to “the risk of legal liability…to Netsoc [one of the student
societies at Trinity College]…”.
Ms
Fitzgerald, in her e-mail, adds that “Ryan Sheridan in the GSU [Graduate
Students Union] is fully conversant with the situation”.
Ms
Fitzgerald copied to the President of the Students Union “the justification
sent to geocities by the College for the removal of this website”, i.e. my
website.
Click here to
read a printout of that e-mail.
One of the
items released is a computer printout of an e-mail dated April 25, 2005 from Mr
Shane Allwright, a member of the Board of Trinity College and an employee of
the College, to Mr Michael Gleeson, the Secretary to the Board of Trinity
College.
Mr
Allwright describes my e-mails to members of the Board of Trinity College as
“SPAM”, says that I am “harassing the Board” of the College, that I am
“harassing” the Secretary to the Board of Trinity College, that my e-mails
constitute “an abuse of the medium”, that I have “clearly rejected” the
“instruction” I received “to stop harassing the Board” of the College and: “I now intend to try to block all his
[Patrick Kelly’s] emails at my end in the same way that other SPAM is
blocked. If it works, I will email the
other Board members and tell them how to do it”.
Mr Allwright
concludes his e-mail by stating that “the utmost caution is required”.
One of the
items released is a copy of a letter dated September 22, 2006 from Cyril J.
Smyth, the Senior Dean at Trinity College, to Patrick Kelly. I never received this letter, however. Apparently, it was written but never
sent.
In this
letter the Senior Dean asserts that “exploitation did not occur even by” my
“definition” of “exploitation”.
He asserts
that “abuse of power” and “abuse of authority” are “single terms well
understood in common parlance…”.
He states
that I “completed misrepresented” what he said.
He insists
that “abuse of power or abuse of authority did not occur even by” my “definition”.
He insists
that “abuse of the disciplinary code did not occur, even by” my
“definition”.
He claims
that it is not possible for “human error or mistake” to “constitute an ‘abuse
of power’ or ‘abuse of authority’ ”.
He claims that
he acted “impartially, critically, fairly and judgmentally in relation to” my
“complaints”.
He
states: “I reject completely that I
have acted as Senior Dean either manifestly unfairly or capriciously or
partially or arbitrarily…”.
He says
that all my “arguments are purely semantic in nature…”.
He
claims: “I have tried to engage with
you positively and constructively and to justify my decisions to you”.
He declares
that “nothing positive would be gained” by any further communication between
us.
One of the
items released is a computer printout of an e-mail dated November 30, 2005 from
the Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trinity College, Ms Anne Fitzgerald, to
Yahoo Geocities, the web hosting service for my website (www.geocities.com/trinitycollegevisitors).
In this
e-mail Ms Fitzgerald protests that my Geocities website “is still accessible”
and she informs Yahoo Geocities: “We
will have to consider legal action if the site is not removed without delay”.
The College
was successful in its efforts to have my Geocities website “removed”.
MY
REQUESTS TO BE ALLOWED TO USE TRINITY COLLEGE’S LIBRARY
Although I regret it profoundly, I
was once student of Dublin’s Trinity College.
In March 2005 I requested “access” to the Library of Trinity
College. In a letter dated March 29,
2005 Michael Gleeson, the Secretary to the Board of Trinity College, informed
me that “the College is not in a position, at this stage, to provide you with
access to our Library”.
Click here
to read Mr Gleeson’s letter.
In January 2006 I applied directly
to the Librarian of Trinity College, Robin Adams, “for temporary membership…as
an external reader”. In a letter dated
February 1, 2006 Mr Adams told that me:
“…I cannot give approval for your application on this occasion”.
Click here
to read Mr Adams’ letter.
Under Section 18 of the Freedom of
Information Act 1997, as amended by the Freedom of Information (Amendment) Act
2003, I sought an explanation for Mr Adams’ decision.
On February 14, 2006 Michael
Gleeson, the Secretary to the Board of Trinity College, wrote a formal letter to
Mr Adams asking that I “not be admitted as a reader”.
Mr Gleeson’s letter can be read by
clicking here.
Mr Adams then sent an e-mail to Ms
Anne Fitzgerald, Assistant Secretary to the Board of Trinity College, giving
his reason for refusing my application to be “admitted an a reader”. That was the reason intended to be used in
answering my Section 18 application.
Click here
to read a printout of Mr Adam’s e-mail to Ms Fitzgerald.
THE
RELATED CIRCUIT COURT CASE UNDER THE EQUAL STATUS ACT 2000
This
Circuit Court case was heard at Court 32 in the Circuit Family Court building
in Smithfield, normally reserved for Family Law cases where the in camera rule
applies. The case lasted for three days (June 27, 28 and 29, 2005).
The Senior Counsel for Trinity College, Senan Allen, informed the Court on June
29, 2005 that the facts were “uncontested”. The Circuit Court judge who
heard the case was Judge Delahunt and on July 15, 2005 she dismissed the
appeal; the ostensible reason for dismissing the appeal was that the facts
referred to did not amount to victimization under the Equal Status Act 2000.
Read the material on the case and see if you agree with the judge’s view.
The list below represents material used in, or written for, the Circuit Court
case –
THE ANTECEDENT SEX DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT AGAINST
UNIVERSITY COLLEGE DUBLIN (UCD)
Patrick Kelly v. National University of Ireland,
Dublin
Complaint under Equal Status Act 2000 to the Director
of the Equality Tribunal
ES/2002/0314
In one
sense all this began in March 2002, when UCD rejected my application to its
postgraduate social work course. In
April 2002 I referred a sex discrimination complaint against UCD to the
Director of the Equality Tribunal under the Equal Status Act 2000. In November 2006 (i.e. 4 years 7
months later) I was notified that my complaint had been rejected. I have appealed to the Circuit Court against
that decision.
Circuit Court Case
Patrick Kelly v. National University of Ireland,
Dublin AKA University College Dublin (UCD) (Defendant) and the Director of the
Equality Tribunal (Notice Party)
Circuit Court 2006 Record Number 7275
MY NOTICE OF
MOTION (November 7, 2006) (PDF) MY NOTICE OF
MOTION (RTF)
MY
AFFIDAVIT (November 6, 2006) (PDF) MY
AFFIDAVIT (RTF)
The case
was listed ‘for mention’ at court 28, The Four Courts, Dublin on Wednesday,
November 29, 2006 at 10.00am to “establish…duration”. On that date I informed the Circuit Court that I would require 2
days to present my case. Eugene
O’Sullivan, the solicitor for UCD, said that he “expect[ed]” the case would
take 1.5 days. I then said that that
1.5 days would be in addition to the 2 days I need, meaning that the total
duration will be 3.5 days.
I wrote to
Eugene O’Sullivan, the solicitor acting for UCD, on November
30, 2006. I copied that letter to
the Chief Executive Officer at UCD and to the Director of the Equality
Tribunal. A copy of my
letter to Mr O’Sullivan is available by clicking here.
On December
14, 2006 I received Mr O’Sullivan’s reply to my letter of November 14,
2006. I sent a response that same
day. A copy of my
responding letter (December
14, 2006) can be read by clicking here. My response deals with the claims Mr
O’Sullivan makes in his letter.
Mr
O’Sullivan replied with a letter
dated December 21, 2006 but not received until December 23,
2006. In it he reveals, I think, more
than he perhaps intended. The text
of his letter can be read by clicking here.
Obviously,
in sending the letter he realized and intended that I would not receive it
until after the notice of motion under Order 57A, Rule 6(6) of the
Circuit Court Rules had been filed. It
was a crude, shameless and desperate attempt to sabotage the application. Unfortunately for him – or, rather,
unfortunately for his “clients” (he’ll get paid whether they win or lose) – I
didn’t actually file the application on December 21. I decided instead to file the application when the Civil Office
of the Dublin Circuit Court re-opened in January. Consequently, when I wrote the supporting affidavit I was able to
incorporate the new information revealed in Mr O’Sullivan’s letter dated
December 21, 2006.
On
December 1, 2006 I received a letter from the Courts Service informing me that
the hearing for the appeal will take place on June 14, 2007 at Court 28, Four
Courts, Dublin 7. I photocopied this
notification and sent it to Mr O’Sullivan, to the Chief Executive Officer of
UCD, and to the Director of the Equality Tribunal. A copy of the cover letter can be read by clicking here.
Application
under Order 57A, Rule 6(6) of the Circuit Court Rules –
NOTICE
OF MOTION (January 4, 2007)
AFFIDAVIT
(January 4, 2007)
Order 57A
of the Circuit Court Rules can be read by clicking here.
My
application under Order 57A was filed at the Circuit Court Civil Office on
January 4, 2007 and the supporting affidavit is also dated January 4,
2007.
Order 57A, Rule 6(6) of the Circuit
Court Rules states:
“Upon the
application on notice of any party the Judge may order any other party to
deliver full and better particulars of any matters stated in the appeal, or to
deliver copies of any documents referred to therein” [emphasis added].
The Courts
Service official with whom I spoke when filing the application said that this
application would be assigned to the County Registrar’s list for hearing. I strongly objected and wanted it assigned
to the Judges list but the official insisted: “This type of motion goes to the
County Registrar”.
(I later
learned that this application should never have been assigned to the County
Registrar’s list. Order 57A explicitly
states that these applications should be heard by a “judge”. The County Registrar is a Court Service
official with limited statutory powers of a judicial nature but she is not a
judge. Section 34(1) of the Courts and
Court Officers Act 1995 allows a County Registrar to “may make any of the
orders mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act”. An order under Order 57A, Rule 6(6) of the Circuit Court Rules is
not an order “mentioned in the Second Schedule to the Courts and Court Officers
Act 1995. Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph
(iv) of the Second Schedule to the Courts and Court Officers Act 1995 does
refer to “discovery” but this is “discovery” according to Order 32 of the
Circuit Court Rules. My application was
an application under Order 57A, Rule of the Circuit Court Rules, which is very
different to the “discovery” process set out in Order 32. A copy of Order 32, provided for purposes of
comparison, can be read by clicking here).
As can be
seen from the Notice of Motion, 3 categories of documents are sought. By its own admission UCD deliberately destroyed
47 percent of these documents last August; this application is for the
remaining 53 percent.
When I filed the Notice of Motion
and supporting affidavit at the Circuit Court Civil Office on January 4, 2007 I
asked for the application to not be placed on the County Registrar’s list and
for it to instead be assigned to the Judges list. As I have said, the official
to whom I was speaking was, however, adamant that the application would have to
be made to the County Registrar and accordingly assigned the application to the
County Registrar’s list. The date I was
given was January 24, 2007. When I
moved the application on that date, however, the County Registrar admitted that
she had not read my supporting affidavit and she adjourned the application to
January 31 “for decision”. I returned
to the County Registrar on January 31, 2007.
On this occasion the County Registrar said that she intended to make an
order under Order 32, Rule 1 of the Circuit Court Rules, i.e. an order
requiring the Defendant “to make discovery on oath of the documents which are
or have been in his possession or power”.
Evidently wishing to appear charitable, she added: “There will be
liberty to re-enter”. I pointed out
that I already knew what documents “are or have been” in the “possession or
power” of the Defendant.
I also pointed out that this is an
application under Order 57A, Rule 6(6) of the Circuit Court Rules and not an
application under Order 32.
When I reminded the County Registrar
that my application was for “copies” of specific documents the County Registrar
became extremely agitated and said that she “didn’t realize” I wanted copies of
the documents. I continued to dispute the validity of her intentions and her
familiarity with the Notice of Motion until the County Registrar eventually –
but reluctantly and ungraciously – agreed to my demand that she transfer the
application as a whole to the Judges list.
The barrister for UCD was completely opposed to having the application
transferred to the Judges list and instead expressed his wholehearted approval
with the course the County Registrar had intended to pursue.
As UCD knows, and as the County
Registrar knew, this case is scheduled for hearing in June 2007. The Defendant wishes to waste as much time
as possible in the hope that a decision on my application will not be reached
by June and that in consequence of this I will be forced to either seek an
adjournment of the appeal or present my case without having the relevant and
necessary documents.
On January 24, 2007 I had the
advantage of listening to and noting the claims advanced by the barrister for
the Defendant in opposing this application. On that occasion the barrister
claimed:
I responded to each of these claims
on January 24, 2007. My response to
each claim is provided below:
1. That the documents UCD
destroyed last August were the documents relating to those applicants who did
not accept (“declined”) the offer of a place on the postgraduate social work
course in 2002.
UCD has not offered or provided any
evidence or proof to substantiate this claim.
However, even if true, the documents relating to the applicants who
accepted a place on a course in 2002 are still available and have not been
destroyed - yet.
2. That the remaining documents
are “not relevant”.
The remaining documents are
“relevant” because they relate to the qualifications of the applicants who were
offered and accepted a place on the postgraduate social work course in 2002 and
how those applicants were assessed, ‘ranked’ and selected for the course. Please see paragraph 53 of my supporting
affidavit dated January 4, 2007 and Taylor v. Clonmel Healthcare Ltd [2004]
IESC 13 (February 11, 2004).
3. That the remaining documents
are “not necessary”.
Please see paragraph 47 of my
supporting affidavit dated January 4, 2007 and Taylor v. Clonmel Healthcare Ltd
[2004] IESC 13 (February 11, 2004).
4. That I “must identify the
least qualified female applicant” who was offered a place on the course in
March 2002 to prove my case.
I am not required to “identify”
anyone to prove my case. Please see
paragraph 103 of the affidavit dated November 6, 2006 and Barton v. Investec
Henderson Crosthwaite Securities Ltd [2003] IRLR 332 EAT (April 3, 2003).
5. That the remaining documents
are “of a sensitive nature”.
Please see paragraph 63 of my
supporting affidavit dated January 4, 2007 and O’Callaghan v. Mahon [2005] IESC
9 (March 9, 2005).
6. That I am “trying to make a
case, not advance the case already made”.
Please see paragraphs 49-54 of my
supporting affidavit dated January 4, 2007 and Taylor v. Clonmel Healthcare Ltd
[2004] IESC 13 (February 11, 2004).
7. That the documents that were
destroyed last August were destroyed “in accordance with the school’s document
disposal policy”.
That is an utter lie. The documents
that were destroyed last August were not destroyed “in accordance with the
school’s document disposal policy”.
Exhibit PK5 to my supporting affidavit of January 4, 2007 is a photocopy
of a letter dated December 21, 2006. It
was written by Eugene O’Sullivan, the solicitor for the Defendant. In this letter Mr O’Sullivan states that
“the School’s Record Retention Policy…provides that ‘records of unsuccessful
direct applicants for undergraduate and postgraduate courses’ be kept for two
years and then shredded”. According to
“the School’s Record Retention Policy”, as described by the solicitor for the
Defendant, the “records” of the “unsuccessful” applicants for the postgraduate
social work course should have been destroyed in 2004. But Mr O’Sullivan admitted, in this letter,
that these particular “records” were not destroyed (“shredded”) until “August
2006”, i.e. when the Defendant and I were notified by the Director of the
Equality Tribunal that she was proceeding with the hearing for the complaint
and that she had “arranged” for the hearing to “take place” the following
month, i.e. September 2006. The
notification from the Director of the Equality Tribunal is dated August 16,
2006. It was at this point that the
Defendant chose to destroy 47 percent of the relevant documents. Please see paragraph 79 and Exhibit PK48 to
the affidavit dated November 6, 2006.
The County
Registrar transferred the application to Circuit Court Judge Jacqueline Linnane
and I returned to the Four Courts on February 14, 2007 for this
application. Without even waiting to
hear what I had to say about my application the Judge immediately said that she
would allow the Defendant to submit an affidavit in response to my
application. I protested: “They already had their chance to do
that. They could have filed a
responding affidavit but did not. They
should not be afforded another opportunity now to write an affidavit regarding
this application”. The Judge refused to
listen to any of my objections and merely asserted: “I want to see an affidavit from the Defendant”. I was constantly interrupted by the Judge
and prevented from speaking. The
barrister for the Defendant, on the other hand, was allowed to hold forth at
length about their opposition to the application and the time they would require
to write the affidavit. At the Defendant’s
suggestion the Judge afforded the Defendant 2 weeks to file their belated
affidavit opposing my application (i.e. until February 28, 2007) and
rescheduled the hearing of the application to March 7, 2007 – when she will
have “the benefit of the Defendant’s affidavit”.
When I
again tried speaking the Judge snapped:
“Behave yourself, Mr Kelly!”
Glaring at me, she said that she would order me to leave the courtroom
if I persisted. I merely shook my head
in disgust.
Of course,
it had been clearly stated in my Notice of Motion under Order 57A, Rule
6(6): “Any affidavit intended to be
used in reply to this application should be filed and delivered before the
hearing of this application”. This
sentence appears in all Notices of Motion. This means that a replying affidavit “should” have been “filed and
delivered” before January 24, 2007 (the date specified in the Notice of
Motion). Judge Linnane, in her conspicuous
generosity toward and deference to the Defendant, chose to disregard this and
the normal practices of the Circuit Court.
After the
spectacle at the Circuit Court on February 14, 2007 I wrote another affidavit
to supplement my affidavit dated January 4, 2006. This new affidavit is dated February 27, 2007 and was filed at the
Circuit Court that day.
AFFIDAVIT
OF FEBRUARY 27, 2007 (.PDF)
AFFIDAVIT
OF FEBRUARY 27, 2007 (.rtf)
On March 1,
2007 I received a copy of an affidavit dated February 28, 2007 sworn by Suzanne
Quin and “on behalf of the Defendant”.
Suzanne Quin is, according to her affidavit, the “Head of the School of
Applied Social Science at University College Dublin”, i.e. the ‘School’
responsible for the postgraduate social work course at UCD.
I wrote, in less than a day, a replying affidavit and filed that replying affidavit at