Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education

This appeal concerned a teacher disciplined by a Teaching Regulation Agency panel and the Secretary of State, who imposed a prohibition order after findings that the teacher repeatedly and deliberately misgendered a transgender pupil in class and on national television, disclosed the pupil's transgender status to the school community, expressed to pupils that homosexuality was "wrong" and implied it might be "cured", and showed an uncompromising video without providing balanced debate. The judge held that the teacher's Article 9 and Article 10 rights were engaged but qualified by professional duties under the Teachers' Standards to treat pupils with dignity and respect and to safeguard their wellbeing. The court extended time for filing the appeal because the original filing had been wrongly rejected when made in the King’s Bench Division, but gave substantial deference to the specialist panel's factual findings and professional judgment and dismissed the appeal against the prohibition order as necessary and proportionate.

Background and procedural posture:

• Mr Sutcliffe, a maths teacher and evangelical Christian, was the subject of complaints at two schools. A Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct which might bring the profession into disrepute following a six-day hearing and recommended a prohibition order; the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation and imposed a prohibition order with a minimum two-year review period.
• Mr Sutcliffe appealed to the High Court and sought an extension of time after his solicitors initially filed in the King’s Bench Division on the last day for filing and the step was rejected; the court concluded that the filing in the King’s Bench Division had been wrongly rejected and, applying section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 read-down principles, extended time.

Nature of the claim / relief sought: Appeal against the Secretary of State’s decision to make a prohibition order and application for extension of time to bring that appeal.

Issues framed by the court:

• Whether to extend time for the appeal in exceptional circumstances.
• Whether the panel and Secretary of State were wrong in their factual findings and in concluding that the teacher’s conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct bringing the profession into disrepute.
• Whether the relevant findings and the imposition of a prohibition order unlawfully interfered with the teacher’s Convention rights under Articles 9 and 10 or with equality law.
• Whether the sanction of a prohibition order was necessary and proportionate.

Court’s reasoning and disposition:

• The court held that the initial filing in the King’s Bench Division was not necessarily incorrect and that rejection by court staff did not invalidate the filing; because the solicitors were not at fault and the misfiling caused only a one-day delay which was rapidly corrected, strict application of the 28-day statutory limit would have impaired the essence of the right to appeal and time was extended.
• The judge reviewed the regulatory framework (Education Act 2002, Teachers’ Disciplinary Regulations 2012 and the Teachers’ Standards) and reiterated that whilst Article 9 and Article 10 protect religious belief and expression, such rights are qualified where necessary to protect the rights and wellbeing of others, including pupils.
• The court gave deference to the specialist panel on findings of fact and evaluative professional judgments and held the panel’s findings were supported by evidence: repeated deliberate misgendering in class and on television, causing significant distress to a vulnerable pupil, unbalanced discussion of homosexuality in class implying that being gay was wrong or curable, and the showing of a video without balanced debate.
• The court accepted that some of the teacher’s external speech and online activity made in his private capacity did not amount to misconduct in employment, but that the misconduct findings directly concerned his professional role and duties. The panel and Secretary of State were entitled to conclude that a prohibition order was necessary to safeguard pupils and maintain public confidence; the judge found no error in that assessment and dismissed the appeal.

Other notable points: The court commented on draft Department for Education guidance published after the events regarding handling requests for preferred pronouns and on the appropriate limits of teacher expression in the classroom; it underlined the need to respect school decision-making and staff obligations to follow school policy and protect pupils.

The court extended time for filing the appeal but dismissed the appeal on its merits. The judge held that although Article 9 and Article 10 protect the claimant's beliefs and expression, those rights are qualified in the school context by the Teachers' Standards and safeguarding duties; the specialist panel's factual findings and professional judgments were supported by evidence and the imposition of a prohibition order was necessary and proportionate to protect pupils and public confidence in the profession.

The decision under challenge followed a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel's six-day hearing which found unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that might bring the profession into disrepute and recommended a prohibition order; the Secretary of State accepted that recommendation and made the prohibition order on 10 May 2023. The appellant filed an appeal (initially in the King’s Bench Division on 8 June 2023, which was rejected by court staff and then refiled in the Administrative Court on 9 June 2023); the High Court extended time and determined the appeal on its merits.