The three-person panel also found that her actions breached the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers.

The sanction followed a fitness-to-teach inquiry held over six days between June 2025 and January 2026.

Neither the teacher, who did not attend Wednesday’s ruling, nor the school can be publicly identified.

Inquiry findings and sanction

Earlier this year, the teacher — now an assistant principal at another school — admitted she had deliberately deceived the inquiry by giving sworn evidence that she had no further contact with the student after what she described as a “one-off” sexual encounter in a hotel in early August 2018.

The teacher said the lie about the status of their relationship had “snowballed out of control”.

However, she denied allegations that she had “groomed” the student, whom she had taught in fifth and sixth year, through Snapchat.

Two allegations related to the pair exchanging at least one photo or video daily on the social media platform between June 14 and August 14, 2018, while the student was completing his Leaving Certificate exams and awaiting his results.

She also denied a separate allegation that she had engaged in “a romantic relationship” with the teenager during that summer.

Relationship and evidence examined

The ongoing nature of the relationship later emerged after one of the teacher’s colleagues saw media reports about her evidence to the fitness-to-teach hearing and contacted the Teaching Council.

The colleague provided photos and images from the teacher’s Instagram account showing the couple together between 2022 and 2025, including on holiday in Greece.

The inquiry originated from a complaint by the teacher’s former school principal, who became aware of the relationship through the teacher’s former partner.

Announcing the sanction, inquiry chairperson Fergal McCarthy said the findings were “incompatible with the important role a teacher plays in the life of a student”.

Mr McCarthy said the teacher failed to act in the student’s best interests around the time of his Leaving Certificate and afterwards, and failed to demonstrate appropriate judgement and professional boundaries.

He said her conduct “lacked integrity, respect and mutual trust” at a time when the student, although aged 18, was still developing “physically, emotionally and psychologically”.

Mr McCarthy also noted that the teacher was about 10 years older than the student and had taught him for the previous two years.

Panel cites dishonesty as aggravating factor

While the sanction related only to the inquiry’s findings, Mr McCarthy said the dishonesty of both the teacher and the student during the hearing was an aggravating factor.

He said the teacher had conspired with the student to provide untruthful evidence and conceal their relationship, including unfollowing him on Instagram the day before the inquiry began last July.

Mr McCarthy acknowledged that the teacher later admitted the pair had been in a relationship and that her former student was “a big part” of her life and someone with whom she was in love.

He said their deliberate falsehoods caused the inquiry significant time and expense and demonstrated that the teacher had shown little insight into the seriousness of her conduct.

He said it also reflected “a lack of candour and integrity”.

Mr McCarthy said the panel had considered banning the teacher from reapplying for registration for a minimum of seven years, but reduced the period to five years in recognition of her previously unblemished career and the fact the relationship began after the student’s Leaving Certificate exams.

However, he said the sanction was necessary to protect the public and uphold confidence in the teaching profession.

Mr McCarthy described the sanction as “proportionate and appropriate” while also allowing the teacher the possibility of returning to teaching in the future.

Arguments presented on sanction

Earlier in the hearing, counsel for the Teaching Council, Eoghan O’Sullivan, said it was vital that teachers understood where professional boundaries with students could become inappropriate.

Teachers, he said, must be trusted not to abuse positions of authority and power.

He added: “Unfortunately in this case, that line was crossed.”

Mr O’Sullivan described the findings against the teacher as “at the upper end of seriousness”.

He argued that the only mitigating factor was the passage of time since 2018, which he noted had been partly extended by legal proceedings initiated by the teacher.

Mr O’Sullivan said the teacher’s initial position at the inquiry had been “built on a pack of lies”.

Even when confronted with evidence, he said, she continued to dispute that she had been in a relationship with the student in 2018 beyond the admitted sexual encounter.

He also claimed she had implicitly suggested her former partner had fabricated evidence given to the inquiry.

However, the teacher’s solicitor, Eoin McGlinchey, said there was no evidence of an inappropriate relationship while the student was attending school.

Mr McGlinchey noted the student was 18 at the time of the sexual encounter and legally an adult.

He also said the case differed from others involving teachers and students because the couple had since remained in what he described as “a loving and committed relationship” for more than six years.

Mr McGlinchey acknowledged that the pair had misled the inquiry but said their desire to conceal the relationship was understandable, while not excusing their actions.

He added that his client had not previously come to the attention of the Teaching Council and had faced no complaints since the events in question.

High Court confirmation required

The sanction removing the teacher’s name from the register will not take effect until it is formally confirmed by the High Court.