Johnston v Secretary of State for Education

On a statutory appeal against professional disciplinary findings, the court must decide whether the panel was entitled to reach its factual conclusions on the evidence. Where the court is in as good a position as the panel to assess primary visual evidence, it may scrutinise that evidence directly, while respecting the panel’s professional judgment. The relevant standard remains the balance of probabilities.

A panel need not analyse every aspect of evidence where the substance of the defence is obvious from the material it considered. However, where a teacher gives a clear account and reasons for conduct alleged to be inappropriate, the panel must record and analyse that account before reaching a bald conclusion. The court may vary an individual finding under CPR Part 52 even where the disciplinary sanction remains unaffected.

The appellant, a teacher, brought a statutory appeal under regulation 17 of the Teachers' Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 against a prohibition order made by the Secretary of State for Education.

A Professional Conduct Panel found several allegations proved on the balance of probabilities, including striking and pushing a pupil, failing to respond to tied shoelaces and failing to prevent inappropriate manhandling by teaching assistants. It found a separate allegation concerning exclusion from classroom activities proved. The Secretary of State imposed a prohibition order, with review unavailable for four years.

The central issues were whether the Panel’s factual findings were supported by CCTV evidence, whether its reasons were adequate, and whether the court had power to give effect to its conclusion concerning the individual exclusion allegation.

1. Review of factual findings. The appeal concerned the findings rather than the proportionality of the prohibition order. The Panel had applied the balance of probabilities. Since the CCTV recording was the sole evidence and the judge had viewed the relevant material, the essential question was whether it was open to the Panel to reach its conclusions. The court’s task was not simply to ask whether it would have reached the same conclusion, but whether the Panel was wrong. Considerable weight was owed to the Panel’s professional judgments.
2. The findings concerning the striking and pushing of the pupil, the failure to respond to the tied shoelaces, and the failure to prevent or address the teaching assistants’ manhandling were supported by the CCTV. Those challenges failed.
3. Adequacy of reasons. The Panel’s reasons were adequate for allegations where the evidence was directly visible on the CCTV and the substance of the appellant’s denial or explanation was apparent. However, the exclusion allegation was different. The appellant had given a detailed explanation for keeping the pupil excluded, based on safety and disruptive behaviour. The Panel was required to record and analyse that explanation before concluding that the duration was unjustified and inappropriate. Its failure to do so made that finding unreliable and unsafe.
4. Relief and final order. Under CPR Part 52 rule 52.10(2)(a), the court had power to vary the Panel’s decision by deleting the unsafe finding, notwithstanding that the finding did not affect the prohibition order or its duration. The appeal was otherwise dismissed. The prohibition order remained in force. The appellant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, summarily assessed at £6,200 inclusive of VAT.

Professional Conduct Panel: Made adverse findings of fact and recommended a prohibition order under the Teachers' Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012.

Secretary of State for Education: Accepted the recommendation and made a prohibition order, providing that an application to set it aside could not be made until at least four years had elapsed.

High Court (Administrative Court): Varied the Panel’s decision by deleting the finding concerning exclusion from classroom activities. The appeal was otherwise dismissed and the prohibition order remained unaffected.