Austin, R (on the application of) v The Teaching Agency

An appellate court reviewing professional disciplinary proceedings applies the statutory and procedural appeal test, not a general rehearing on the merits. A decision will stand unless it was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. Apparent bias requires a real possibility of bias assessed from the perspective of a fair-minded and informed observer. A professional disciplinary tribunal’s assessment of sanction merits considerable respect. The court should interfere only where the sanction is clearly inappropriate, while ensuring that it remains proportionate.

The claimant, a teacher, appealed against a Professional Conduct Committee decision finding that his conduct at two schools amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and imposing a two-year suspension order. The General Teaching Council for England had been abolished, and the Teaching Agency assumed the relevant functions. The claimant challenged the Committee’s composition, its treatment of alleged provocation and other evidence, the finding of unacceptable professional conduct, and the proportionality of the sanction.

1. The appeal was governed by CPR 52.11(3). It could succeed only if the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious professional, procedural or other irregularity.
2. The apparent-bias test stated in Magill v Porter [2000] 2 AC 357 was whether a fair-minded and informed observer would consider that there was a real possibility of bias. The Committee’s composition did not satisfy that test, and there was no evidence of actual bias.
3. The Committee was entitled to decide the allegations on the evidence before it, including the claimant’s conduct at the hearing and lack of insight or genuine regret. The absence of references and alleged shortcomings of the reporting agency did not establish that the decision was wrong or unjust.
4. The primary purpose of disciplinary sanctions is to maintain professional standards and public confidence. Protection of pupils and the impact on the professional are also relevant. As stated in Patricia Davies v General Teaching Council for England [2010] EWCA 2075 (Admin), considerable respect is owed to the tribunal’s professional judgment on sanction, and intervention is justified only where the sanction is clearly inappropriate.
5. The unauthorised entry to school premises, threats and abuse towards teachers, involvement of two schools, and lack of insight or genuine regret supported the two-year suspension. The appeal was dismissed.

The claimant appealed from the General Teaching Council for England Professional Conduct Committee’s decision dated 27 May 2011. The Committee found unacceptable professional conduct and imposed a two-year suspension order. The High Court dismissed the appeal.