Anonymisation order in plagiarism case can continue if pharmacy student appeals

High Court Reporter

The High Court has ruled an anonymisation order can continue in the case of a Trinity College pharmacy student, at the centre of plagiarism findings, until and if he appeals a decision to lift the order.

On Friday, Judge Garrett Simons dismissed the student's application for anonymity in the case he is bringing against the Trinity Provost, Fellows and Scholars, and the Pharmaceutical Society of Ireland.

However, the order continues for 28 days to allow him to appeal the High Court decision, after which his anonymity will be lifted.

The student is asking the court to overturn a February 2024 decision of the University Council, which was subsequently approved by the college Fitness to Practise Committee to “withdraw” him from a Master's course in pharmacy after he was deemed by the head of the school of pharmacy as not fit to practise.

Mr Justice Simons said his judgment was only concerned with the student's request for reporting restrictions in the case.

This was premised, primarily, on the fact that one of the findings made against him was that he committed an act of plagiarism in the sitting of the penultimate exam of his postgraduate year, he said.

He had also been found to have committed what are described as an “agglomeration” of breaches of the code of conduct, including arranging for another student to sign him into a mandatory workshop which he did not actually attend.

The student lodged an appeal against the University Council decision against him with the "University Visitors" who dismissed the appeal in July 2024. The judge noted the proceedings of the Visitors are open to all members of the college community, with limited exceptions on the application of any of the parties.

The judge said no such exception application was made by the student and any member of the 20,000-strong college community could attend them.

Regardless of whether the appeal had granted anonymity, had he applied, the form of procedure before a public body cannot dictate the procedure to be adopted by the High Court in a subsequent legal challenge, he said.

The constitutional imperative is that justice be administered in public, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law.

Reporting restrictions were first imposed in December 2024 when the case first came before the court on a one side only (ex parte) basis but the university later applied to have them lifted.

The student opposed its lifting on grounds including that it would adversely affect his constitutional rights to a good name and to earn a livelihood, the risk of online abuse if his name is revealed, and his mental health.

In his main proceedings, the student disputes both the fairness and lawfulness of the referral to the Fitness to Practise Committees. He contends the appeal decision was disproportionate and made without taking account of relevant material, in particular character references.

The judge said even if he is successful in setting aside the findings made against him, it will remain a fact that he did commit academic plagiarism, the judge said

The object of the constitutional right to a good name is to protect the reputation which somebody actually possesses and is not intended to prevent disclosure of facts which are not disputed, he said.

"A litigant cannot rely on the risk of embarrassment caused by their own admitted misconduct to justify a derogation from the constitutional imperative that justice be administered in public", he said.

It would be inappropriate to impose reporting restrictions in relation to proceedings simply because one of the parties apprehends that any online discussion of the case might descend into personal abuse, he said.

There was also no evidence before the court which suggested that his public identification will give rise to a real risk to his health and safety or to that of his family members as a result of online abuse.

No independent medical evidence has been adduced to suggest the student had a qualifying medical condition such to justify an order granting him anonymity, the judge said.