A former school principal convicted over fraudulently deceiving the Department of Education of €450,000 by overstating pupil numbers had a “Robin Hood type of thought process”, a judge said on Tuesday.
Helen O’Gorman of Newtown Lawns, Mullingar, Co Westmeath, had a conviction recorded against her with no penalty imposed following a sentence hearing at Longford Circuit Court and she will not serve time jail time.
She had previously served as the principal of St Mary’s National School in Edgeworthstown, Co Longford. She pleaded guilty to one charge of dishonestly obtaining funding from the Department of Education and fraudulently deceiving the department of €450,000 from 2012 to 2013.
Judge Keenan Johnson pointed out that Ms O’Gorman had been principal at the primary school from 2002 and when a new school was developed in Edgeworthstown in 2014 she came under serious pressure. She “overstated” the number of pupils at the school when she submitted the annual returns for when teachers and capitation grants were allocated, he said as he delivered his verdict.
“The school became overstaffed and the department subsequently made an overpayment to teachers of €276,000 while another €137,000 in capitation grants was paid out,” the judge said. “It is accepted there was no personal or financial gain on her part.”
‘No real intent’
He said the case before him was “most unusual” and “very serious”. “This woman defrauded the State but yet she had no real intent to do so,” he continued.
“She seemed to have a Robin Hood type of thought process in that she was taking from the department to give the poor children at the school.
“I do appreciate that the department system is built on trust and it has to rely on principals when it comes to teacher allocations and the distribution of capitation grants.
“Ms O’Gorman is a lady who dedicated her life to teaching and to her pupils; she also committed herself to looking after her parents who have now passed away.”
The judge went on to say that he had been furnished with a plethora of testimonies in respect of the defendant and was under no illusion as to the committed person that she was.
He said there was no benefit to imposing a custodial sentence in the case before him.
The judge subsequently imposed Section 1.2 of the Probation Act.