Zia v National College for Teaching And Leadership ("NCTL") & Anor

An appeal against a teacher prohibition order is determined by considering all material available to the decision-maker and asking whether the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural irregularity. The appellate court must give appropriate weight to the professional expertise of the disciplinary panel and Secretary of State.

A panel is not ordinarily required to adjourn of its own motion to obtain further mitigation evidence where the teacher is represented, has been informed that such evidence may be called, and makes no application. The court may consider new evidence on appeal, but procedural unfairness is not established where that evidence would not have altered the outcome.

Mr Zia appealed under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 against a prohibition order made by the Secretary of State for Education after the Professional Conduct Panel of the National College for Teaching and Leadership found unacceptable professional conduct and conduct bringing the teaching profession into disrepute.

He admitted the factual allegations and misconduct. His appeal alleged procedural unfairness because the panel had not adjourned to allow him to obtain independent testimonials supporting his reputation as a teacher. The central issues were whether the panel should have initiated an adjournment without an application and whether the prohibition order was wrong or unjust under CPR 52.21(3).

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under CPR 52.21(3), the court considered all material available to the Secretary of State and assessed whether the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. That assessment involved a secondary judgment, while allowing for the expertise and professional judgment of the PCP and Secretary of State. The approach was consistent with McTier v Secretary of State for Education [2017] PTSR 815 and Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] PTSR 675.
2. The PCP was not required to adjourn proceedings on its own initiative. Mr Zia had legal representation, had received guidance explaining that mitigation evidence could be called at the sanction stage, and had been told that an adjournment could be sought. No application was made. The material before the PCP did not indicate that a further adjournment would produce useful evidence, particularly in view of Mr Zia’s stated embarrassment about approaching witnesses.
3. The court was entitled to consider the new testimonials produced on appeal. They were largely from students and did not provide the independent adult evidence concerning professional judgment, insight and boundaries which the PCP had sought. They would not have altered the recommendation or the Secretary of State’s decision. Accordingly, there was no serious procedural irregularity causing injustice.
4. The prohibition order was justified. The admitted conduct created a clear risk of personal injury to pupils and demonstrated inadequate professional boundaries. The PCP was entitled to find limited insight and the Secretary of State was entitled to regard that as creating some risk of repetition. The decision involved a lawful balancing of pupil safety, proper professional standards, public confidence, Mr Zia’s potential contribution and his own interests. A prohibition order subject to review after the minimum two-year period was not wrong.

• Professional Conduct Panel: found the admitted facts proved and found unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the teaching profession into disrepute.
• Secretary of State for Education: imposed a prohibition order, with a right to seek review after two years.
• High Court (Administrative Court): dismissed the appeal.