Webster v General Teaching Council

The civil standard of proof remains the balance of probabilities, even where allegations are serious or the consequences of proof are substantial. Decision-makers must examine the evidence carefully and anxiously, but must not adopt a heightened standard of proof. In professional disciplinary proceedings, particulars should be considered together in determining the overall allegation, rather than being assessed in isolation. On an appeal from a professional disciplinary body, the reviewing court does not rehear the evidence. It may intervene only where the body’s conclusions are wrong, including by quashing, substituting or remitting findings.

The claimant appealed against a decision of the Professional Conduct Committee of the General Teaching Council dated 5 August 2011. The Committee found four particulars proved and concluded that she had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a 17-year-old pupil, contrary to section 8(1) of Schedule II to the Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998. The appeal was brought under regulation 24 of the General Teaching Council for England (Disciplinary Functions) Regulations 2001.

The central issues were whether the Committee had misunderstood the meaning of an inappropriate relationship, whether the evidence was sufficient, and whether the court should interfere with the Committee’s assessment of the witnesses and findings.

1. Appeal dismissed. The court found no basis for concluding that the Committee’s conclusions were wrong. The two-year suspension was not challenged as excessive if the finding involved a sexual or intimate relationship.
2. The applicable standard was the balance of probabilities. In applying the approach described by Lord Hoffmann in In re D (Secretary of State for Northern Ireland intervening) [2008] UKHL 33, the court accepted that serious allegations may require appropriately careful consideration. They do not require a different or specially cogent standard of evidence.
3. A professional disciplinary body must focus on the overall allegation while using the particulars to determine it. The particulars should be considered together and not treated as separate, isolated allegations.
4. The court’s function on an appeal from the Committee was not to rehear the proceedings. It could quash findings, substitute findings or remit the matter only if the Committee’s conclusions were wrong.
5. The Committee was entitled to assess the witnesses who appeared before it. It had accepted Mrs Goss as a truthful and accurate witness and had identified difficulties in parts of the claimant’s evidence. The Committee was entitled to rely on the cumulative effect of the Facebook contact, photographs, physical intimacy and visit to the public house. Taken together, those matters provided a sufficient basis for finding an inappropriate relationship, understood as sexual or intimate.
6. The appeal therefore failed. The claimant was ordered to pay counsel’s fees and VAT amounting to £3,420, with enforcement stayed for 56 days.

• High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal against the Professional Conduct Committee’s decision dated 5 August 2011 was dismissed.