Glawdys Leger, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education

In teacher disciplinary proceedings, a professional conduct panel may assess classroom comments in their full educational and institutional context, including the teacher’s own evidence, the school’s ethos and policies, and the teacher’s influential position.

The statutory duty to maintain a broad and balanced curriculum rests on schools, but teachers are generally expected to deliver that curriculum in accordance with school policy and directions. The statutory scheme regulating teachers, read with the relevant standards and guidance, provided a sufficiently accessible and foreseeable legal basis for restrictions on Articles 9 and 10 rights. Publication of a misconduct decision, including the teacher’s name, was authorised by the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 and was a proportionate sanction.

The claimant, a French and Spanish teacher at a Church of England academy, challenged findings by a professional conduct panel that comments made during a Religious Studies lesson about LGBTQ+ issues amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel recommended no prohibition order but publication of its findings. The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation.

The judicial review challenged the panel’s treatment of context, procedural fairness, the relevance of curriculum duties and school policy, the compatibility of the decision with Articles 9 and 10 ECHR, and the publication of the decision under Article 8 ECHR. Permission had been granted by Sheldon J on 14 May 2024.

1. The claim was dismissed. The claimant had not established any public law error, breach of common law fairness, or breach of Articles 6, 8, 9 or 10 ECHR.
2. The panel was entitled to consider the comments in context. That included the claimant’s Christian beliefs, the lesson’s subject matter, the fact that she had initiated the discussion, evidence of an earlier similar incident, her decision not to teach prescribed material, and her removal of an EDI poster. Those matters formed part of the claimant’s own evidence and were relevant to whether the comments were inappropriate and amounted to unacceptable professional conduct.
3. There was no procedural unfairness. The pleaded allegations identified the comments said to have been made. The panel was then required to decide their professional significance. It could rely on contextual matters raised and explained by the claimant herself, even though they had not been separately pleaded.
4. The statutory duty to secure a broad and balanced curriculum rests on schools, not individual teachers. Nevertheless, the curriculum must be delivered by teachers, who are generally expected to follow the school curriculum, policies and directions. The panel was therefore entitled to consider the claimant’s refusal to teach LGBTQ+ material against the School’s Religious Studies Policy.
5. The panel correctly applied the relevant Convention principles. The legal basis for interference with Articles 9 and 10 was the statutory regulatory scheme, supplemented by the Teachers’ Standards and relevant guidance. That framework satisfied accessibility and foreseeability, while allowing the evaluative judgment appropriate to professional regulation. The four-stage proportionality approach in Bank Mellat was properly addressed.
6. The panel and Secretary of State were entitled to conclude that the claimant’s conduct undermined respect for pupils’ rights, risked upsetting pupils and failed to reflect the School’s ethos and policies. Publication, rather than a prohibition order, was the less severe and proportionate sanction. Regulation 8(5) required publication of the decision, and publication in full, including the claimant’s name, was lawful and compatible with Article 8.