Reilly v Teaching Regulation Agency & Anor

A disciplinary panel may proceed in a teacher’s absence where the teacher had proper notice, no good reason for an adjournment is shown, and there is no realistic prospect of attendance at a later hearing. Fairness to the teacher is paramount, but must be balanced against the public interest in effective disciplinary proceedings.

Misdescribed or over-complicated disciplinary allegations do not necessarily invalidate a decision. The question is whether the teacher understood and had a fair opportunity to answer the substance of the case, and whether the errors caused material disadvantage. In assessing misconduct, deliberate failure to disclose information may be relevant even where the legal label of dishonesty is inappropriate.

This was an appeal under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 against an indefinite prohibition order made by the Secretary of State for Education. The appellant, a primary-school head teacher, had been dismissed after failing to disclose her personal relationship with a person convicted of making and possessing indecent images of children.

The Professional Conduct Panel proceeded in her absence and recommended a prohibition order. The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation. The appeal challenged both the decision to proceed without her and the conclusions that her failure to disclose amounted to professional misconduct and justified the order.

1. Proceeding in the appellant’s absence. The Panel’s self-direction that a hearing should proceed in a teacher’s absence only in rare and exceptional circumstances was unsupported by the authorities. The correct approach, derived from General Medical Council v Hayat [2018] EWCA Civ 2796 and General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016] 1 WLR 3867, was to consider all known circumstances after being satisfied that proper notice had been given. Fairness to the teacher was a prime consideration, but the public interest in effective disciplinary proceedings also had to be weighed.

2. The Panel’s reasoning was poorly structured, but its conclusion was within the range of judgment reasonably available to it. The appellant had been given ample opportunity to explain her alleged illness, had provided no supporting information, and had indicated that she would not attend a future hearing. The Panel was therefore entitled to find that no good reason for an adjournment had been shown and that the case could fairly proceed on the written material and witness evidence available.

3. The disciplinary allegations were unnecessarily elaborate and overlapping. The true issue was whether a competent primary-school head teacher ought to have realised that her relationship with a convicted sex offender should be disclosed to the school governors, and whether she deliberately chose not to disclose it. The absence of a statutory obligation to disclose was immaterial because the decision did not depend on such an obligation.

4. The allegations of misleading the disciplinary investigation, lack of insight and dishonesty used inappropriate terminology. Nevertheless, the appellant understood the substance of the allegations and had a fair opportunity to respond. Failure to admit misconduct could not itself aggravate the misconduct. The legally relevant conclusion was that the failure to disclose was deliberate rather than merely negligent. That was an aggravating feature, and the misformulation caused no material error.

5. The Secretary of State was entitled to conclude that a reasonably competent head teacher would have disclosed the relationship and that the appellant realised this but chose not to do so. Allowing for the Secretary of State’s assessment of professional standards and public confidence, the prohibition order was correctly made. The appeal was dismissed.

High Court (Administrative Court): The appeal under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 against the Secretary of State’s prohibition order was dismissed.