Kingston, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education

A Secretary of State deciding whether to impose a teacher prohibition order must consider a professional conduct panel’s recommendation, but need not give it special deference. The statutory responsibility for sanction rests with the Secretary of State.

Reasons must be adequate in context. They should explain the principal controversial issues, any material divergence from the panel’s recommendation, and why the sanction is proportionate. They need not address every factor individually.

On appeal, the High Court asks whether the decision was wrong. It does not substitute the sanction it would have imposed. Sexual misconduct may justify prohibition where significant weight is given to public confidence and proper professional standards, even in the presence of substantial mitigation.

A professional conduct panel found that the claimant had searched for and viewed images depicting sexual activity between a person and an animal. It found the allegation proved, but rejected sexual motivation and unacceptable professional conduct. It concluded that the conduct might bring the teaching profession into disrepute, but recommended against a prohibition order because the claimant was a passive participant, had an exemplary teaching record, showed insight and remorse, and posed no identified risk to pupils.

The Secretary of State disagreed and imposed a prohibition order, permitting review after two years. The claimant challenged the decision for inadequate reasons and disproportionate sanction. The central issues were the weight owed to the panel’s recommendation, the adequacy of the Secretary of State’s reasons, and whether the sanction was wrong.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The Secretary of State’s decision to impose a prohibition order, subject to possible review after two years, was upheld.

2. Regulation 8(1) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 requires the Secretary of State to consider the panel’s recommendation. It does not require special deference. The statutory responsibility for deciding whether to impose a prohibition order rests solely with the Secretary of State. The disciplinary appeal authorities relied on by the claimant arose in a different context and did not alter that conclusion. The same approach had been reached in Lonnie v NCTL [2014] EWHC 4351.

3. The duty to give reasons is context-dependent. Relevant purposes include enabling the person affected to understand why they won or lost, identifying any legal error, informing future decision-making or review, and understanding the conclusions on the principal controversial issues. In this case, the reasons adequately explained that the Secretary of State had considered the panel’s findings but assigned greater weight to public confidence and proper standards, and less weight to insight and the isolated nature of the incident. It was unnecessary to address every mitigating factor separately. The principles in English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 2409 and South Bucks District Council v Porter (No. 2) [2004] UKHL 33 were applied.

4. On the sanction challenge, the question was whether the Secretary of State’s decision was wrong, not what sanction the court would have imposed. The court had to respect the judgment and discretion vested in the Secretary of State by the statutory scheme and was not remaking the decision. The approach in Lonnie v NCTL [2014] EWHC 4351 was applied.

5. The Advice identified protection of pupils, public confidence and the maintenance of proper standards as public-interest considerations. Its examples of conduct potentially incompatible with teaching were non-exhaustive. The conduct was sexual in nature and the Secretary of State was entitled to treat it with the utmost seriousness. Although the claimant’s mitigation was powerful, it did not outweigh the public-interest considerations. A two-year review period appropriately recognised his good record, remorse, insight and the absence of direct impact on his teaching.

• Professional conduct panel: found one allegation proved, concluded that the conduct might bring the profession into disrepute, and recommended against a prohibition order.
• Secretary of State for Education: disagreed with the recommendation and imposed a prohibition order, with review possible after two years.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal and upheld the Secretary of State’s decision.