Kanchana Vanhove v Secretary of State for Education & Anor

An appeal against a prohibition order imposed under the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 is ordinarily conducted by way of review. The appellate court does not retry the case or substitute its own factual assessment for that of the professional conduct panel.

Interference is justified only where the decision is wrong, unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity, or rests on a perverse finding that no reasonable panel could have reached. Serious allegations and reputational consequences do not, without more, require a rehearing. A panel may rely on hearsay if it evaluates its weight cautiously and considers corroboration. The burden of proof remains on the regulator, although the absence of supporting evidence may properly be considered.

The applicant appealed under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 against an indefinite prohibition order imposed by the Secretary of State for Education following a recommendation by the Teaching Regulation Agency’s Professional Conduct Panel.

The allegations concerned unauthorised purchases and expense claims made while the applicant was headteacher of a primary school, together with alleged dishonesty and withholding of invoices. The Panel dismissed some allegations at the close of the regulator’s case, found others proved after a 12-day hearing, and recommended the earliest available review of the prohibition order.

The central issues were whether the appeal required a rehearing, whether the Panel’s factual findings and treatment of hearsay were lawful, whether it reversed the burden of proof, and whether its reasons were adequate.

1. Approach to the appeal. The appeal was dismissed. Under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 and CPR Part 52, the appropriate approach was review rather than rehearing. The court would interfere only if the decision was wrong or unjust because of a serious procedural or other irregularity. A finding of fact could be overturned only if it was perverse, in the sense that no reasonable panel could have reached it.
2. The Panel had heard the witnesses and was best placed to assess disputed facts, credibility and professional evidence. The court was not entitled to retry the case merely because it might have reached a different conclusion. The seriousness of the allegations and reputational harm did not themselves create the exceptional circumstances required for a rehearing. The case was analogous to Sutcliffe and distinguishable from Ullmer, where the particular allegations and consequences justified a rehearing.
3. The Panel was entitled to consider hearsay evidence. It recognised its limitations, treated it cautiously, assessed the weight of individual items, and looked for corroboration in oral testimony, other hearsay and contemporaneous documents. The regulator was not required to call every potentially relevant witness.
4. The Panel adopted a proper item-by-item approach to the submission that there was no case to answer. It dismissed allegations where there was no cogent evidence or no realistic prospect of proof. Once it found a case to answer, it was appropriate not to make premature assessments of witnesses that might be affected by the defence evidence.
5. The Panel did not reverse the burden of proof. The burden remained on the Teaching Regulation Agency throughout. The Panel was entitled to consider the absence of evidence supporting the applicant’s explanations when assessing the evidence as a whole.
6. The Panel’s findings were supported by evidence, including witness testimony, emails, documents and reasonable inferences. Its reasons adequately explained the conclusions reached. The appeal therefore failed under CPR r. 52.21(3), and the prohibition order remained in force subject to the applicant’s entitlement to seek a review.

The judgment states that the applicant appealed to the High Court under regulation 17 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 against a prohibition order imposed by the Secretary of State for Education following the Teaching Regulation Agency Panel’s recommendation. The appeal was dismissed and the prohibition order remained in force, subject to review.