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

The claimant sought judicial review of a Professional Conduct Panel's finding of unacceptable professional conduct and of the Secretary of State's decision, under section 141B(1) of the Education Act 2002 and regulation 8(5) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, to publish the panel's adverse findings while not imposing a prohibition order. The court upheld the panel's findings that the claimant had made certain inappropriate comments in a Year 7 Religious Studies lesson (five particulars proved, one not proved) and that those comments breached the Teachers’ Standards (Part 2) by failing to show respect for the rights of others and not having proper professional regard for school policies.

The court rejected the claimant's public law and human rights challenges. It held that (i) the panel took proper account of context and relevant evidence; (ii) there was no procedural unfairness or Article 6 breach in reliance on contextual material in the claimant's own evidence; (iii) it was lawful for the panel to treat a teacher's refusal to teach prescribed curriculum material as relevant to whether a balanced curriculum had been delivered; and (iv) the panel and Secretary of State correctly applied the Article 9/10 legality and proportionality tests (applying Purdy and Bank Mellat) and lawfully concluded that publication was a proportionate, less intrusive sanction than a prohibition order. The claim for judicial review was dismissed.

Background and parties: The claimant, a practising Roman Catholic and former teacher of French, Spanish and some Religious Studies/PSHE at a Church of England secondary school, challenged a Professional Conduct Panel (PCP) finding of unacceptable professional conduct and the Secretary of State’s decision to publish the PCP’s findings but not impose a prohibition order. Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers by Sheldon J on 14 May 2024.

Facts and procedure: The PCP heard evidence over five days, including the claimant, a pupil (Pupil A) and witnesses. Allegations comprised a number of classroom comments made on 8 February 2022 in a Year 7 Religious Studies lesson addressing LGBTQ+ topics. The PCP proved five of six specified particulars (that certain statements were made and were inappropriate) and found allegation 2 (contrary to Fundamental British values) not proved. The PCP found unacceptable professional conduct established, but recommended no prohibition order; instead it recommended publication of the findings. The Secretary of State accepted that recommendation and, pursuant to regulation 8(5), published the decision.

Reliefs sought and issues: The claimant sought judicial review on multiple grounds: (i) failure to take proper account of context; (ii) unfairness/Article 6 breach because some reasoning was not pleaded; (iii) misdirection that teachers owe a duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum; (iv) misapplication of Articles 9 and 10 rights; (v) unlawfulness for want of a legal basis; (vi) lack of proportionality under Bank Mellat; and (vii) Article 8/data protection objection to publication.

Court’s analysis and conclusions: The court applied established public law and disciplinary review principles and gave deference to the PCP on findings of fact and evaluative judgments. On context and procedural fairness the court rejected the claimant’s complaints, noting that the PCP had properly considered the claimant’s own account (including prior conduct she herself relied on) and that the matters relied on were part of her case and tested at the hearing. On the curriculum argument the court accepted that the statutory duty to provide a balanced curriculum lies on schools but held that teachers are expected to deliver it in accordance with school policy; the PCP was entitled to regard the claimant’s refusal to teach prescribed material as relevant to misconduct. On Convention rights the court applied the Purdy test for legality and Bank Mellat for proportionality, holding that the statutory scheme (Education Act 2002, 2012 Regulations, Teachers’ Standards and guidance) provided an accessible and sufficiently foreseeable legal basis and that the PCP lawfully and proportionately limited Articles 9 and 10 rights. On publication the court concluded regulation 8(5) required publication, that publication pursued legitimate public interest aims (safeguarding, public confidence, informing employers), and that publication was a proportionate, lesser sanction than a prohibition order. The judicial review claim was dismissed.

The claim is dismissed. The court held that the Professional Conduct Panel’s factual findings and evaluative conclusions were within the panel’s discretion and supported by evidence, that there was no procedural unfairness, and that the statutory scheme and guidance provided a lawful, foreseeable basis for restricting Articles 9 and 10 rights. The panel and the Secretary of State correctly applied proportionality principles (Bank Mellat) and regulation 8(5) lawfully authorised publication; publication was a proportionate, lesser sanction than prohibition.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers by Sheldon J on 14 May 2024. No further appellate history is stated in the judgment.