London School of Science and Technology, R (on the application of) v Pearson Education Ltd

Where a regulatory body investigates institutional malpractice and proposes personal sanctions against a responsible office-holder, it must distinguish the institutional case from the individual case. The individual must be told that personal culpability and sanctions are in issue, given the relevant evidence, and afforded appropriate procedural safeguards.

Serious institutional malpractice and non-delegable managerial responsibilities may establish formal accountability, but they do not alone establish the degree of personal culpability needed to justify severe personal sanctions. Particularly severe or unusual sanctions must be clearly explained, justified by the published framework, and proportionate in purpose, effect and duration.

The claimant, a private college accredited to offer Pearson qualifications, challenged Pearson’s finding of serious, systemic malpractice in its recruitment processes. Pearson withdrew the college’s accreditation and imposed personal sanctions on its Principal, including a bar on re-registration and a bar on involvement with Pearson qualifications.

The college challenged the process on public law grounds, including procedural unfairness, failure to consider relevant matters, failure to apply the balance of probabilities, and disproportionate sanctions. The court upheld the withdrawal of accreditation but considered whether the process and findings lawfully supported the separate sanctions imposed on the Principal.

1. Withdrawal of accreditation. The court upheld the finding of serious, systemic malpractice and the withdrawal of Pearson accreditation from LSST. The decision-makers were entitled to consider the origins of the investigation, provided that material concerning wider allegations was not treated as proof of uninvestigated misconduct. The relevant evidence and explanations were considered on appeal. The balance of probabilities was the applicable standard, and the decision documents, read fairly and in context, showed that it had been applied.
2. Institutional sanction. Pearson’s policies required consideration of sanctions from the least severe upwards. The appeal materials showed that this “bottom up” approach had been addressed. Given the seriousness and systemic nature of the recruitment failures, withdrawal of accreditation was predictable, proportionate, and within the range available under the published framework.
3. Personal responsibility. A head of centre has non-delegable responsibilities for compliance and the integrity of qualifications. However, the regulatory guidance distinguishes investigation of a centre from investigation of its head. Personal culpability may vary substantially, and the individual must know whether personal competence, conduct or culpability is in issue. The finding that malpractice occurred on the Principal’s watch established formal accountability, but did not establish the degree of personal culpability.
4. Personal sanctions. The personal sanctions were not supported by adequate findings, procedures or reasoning. The Principal had not been expressly notified that personal malpractice was under investigation, the evidence and submissions did not address the degree of his personal responsibility, and the decision-makers did not explain why the severe sanctions were selected or how they were authorised by the guidance. The re-registration bar was also unclear and did not specify the circumstances in which it operated. The sanctions imposed personally on the Principal and upheld by the Appeal Panel were therefore set aside.
5. Pearson was also required to address the guidance requiring LSST to be informed of the earliest date on which it could re-apply for registration and any measures required before that application.