The King on the application of Glawdys Leger v Secretary of State for Education

Hearing date: 26 February 2025

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30 am on 20 March 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives.

The Claimant applies for judicial review of the finding, made by a Professional Conduct Panel (“the PCP”), appointed by the Defendant (“the Secretary of State”), that the Claimant was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, and the Secretary of State's decision, dated 11 December 2023, pursuant to section 141B(1) of the Education Act 2002 (“the EA 2002”), accepting the PCP's recommendation that no prohibition order should be made, but that the finding of misconduct should be published, under regulation 8(5) of the Teachers' Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”).

The Claimant's grounds of challenge may be summarised as follows:

i) The PCP failed to take proper account of relevant considerations, namely the immediate context in which the Claimant's comments were made.

ii) The decision was unfair at common law and/or Article 6 ECHR in that crucial findings were made which were not included in the original allegations or evidence, and not put to the Claimant in cross-examination.

iii) The PCP misdirected itself that there was a duty on the Claimant to provide a broad and balanced curriculum. That duty only applies to schools but not to individual teachers.

iv) The Panel misdirected itself on Convention Rights under Article 9 and/or Article 10 ECHR.

v) The decision is incompatible with the Claimant's Article 9 and/or Article 10 ECHR rights in that the interference is not prescribed by law and fails the three-stage test set out in Purdy v DPP [2010] 1 AC 345, at [40];

vi) The interference with the Claimant's Article 9 and/or Article 10 ECHR rights is “not necessary in a democratic society” and fails the four stage test in Bank Mellat v Her Majesty's Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 38, [2014] AC 700, at [20];

vii) The publication of the decision is incompatible with the Claimant's rights under Article 8 ECHR and data protection rights.

Permission to apply for judicial review was granted on the papers by Sheldon J. on 14 May 2024.

History

The Claimant was born in April 1980. She came to the UK for her Postgraduate Certificate in Education in 2008–2009. From 2012 to 2017, she was self-employed teaching French and Spanish in primary schools, and working as a private tutor.

In August 2017, she secured a permanent job as a Teaching Assistant at Bishop Justus Church of England School (“the School”), which is a secondary school run by the Aquinas Trust. In November 2017, she successfully applied for the post of French and Spanish teacher. She also taught some Religious Studies lessons and some PSHE lessons 1.

The School's Employee Handbook advises teachers as follows:

“ Character of the Trust

As an employee in a Church of England academy you are required to have regard to the Christian character of the Trust and its foundation and to undertake not to do anything in any way contrary to the interests of the Foundation.

Teachers

You are required, if called upon to do so by the Headteacher, to give religious education in accordance with the doctrines of the Church of England and the Trust Deed of the academy. You are also required to take part in and lead acts of religious worship if required by the Headteacher.”

The School's Religious Studies Policy was referred to at the PCP hearing.

The Claimant is a born-again “conservative” Roman Catholic Christian. She explained in her witness statement to the PCP that her faith is a mainstream form of Christianity which affirms the truthfulness of the Bible. The Claimant believes that biological sex is immutable and should not be tampered with, and sexual relationships should only exist within a marriage between a man and a woman. However, she states that she would never condemn or discriminate against anyone whose views differ from hers. As a Christian, she is called upon to love everyone, including people with whom she disagrees.

In her witness statement, the Claimant described aspects of the teaching at the School which she considered were not Christian, in particular, LGBTQ+ 2 relationships and ideology, and abortion. The School promoted Equality Diversity and Inclusion (“EDI”) initiatives and teachers were asked to display “Christian Ethos, Curriculum and Equalities, Diversity and Inclusion” posters in their classrooms. The Claimant did display the poster but then informed Mr Kings, the Chaplain, that she was not willing to continue to do so. The Claimant was frequently expected to share LGBTQ+ information and resources, including videos, with her pupils, in PHSE and Religious Studies lessons. She showed some LGBTQ+ material to her classes, but she found it distressing, misleading, and contrary to her beliefs, and so stopped doing so.

The Claimant said that she explained her difficulties to Ms Amosu, Assistant Headteacher and Head of EDI, who suggested that she should not teach these topics. She also informed the Chaplin and Mr Hadaway, Head of Year 8. Mr Hadaway suggested that she should consult the Headteacher and that perhaps he could teach those topics to her class.

On 8 February 2022, the Claimant was asked to teach Year 7, in a Religious Studies lesson, a segment described as “Human Rights”, which included a PowerPoint presentation on LGBTQ+ topics and protected characteristics. On that occasion, she explained her Christian beliefs to the class, and why LGBTQ+ ideology was contrary to those beliefs, and the pupils asked questions about these issues.

Pupil A was in the class. According to her witness statement, on a previous occasion she had told her mother that the Claimant was “being transphobic in class and talking how trans people are not in the right mindset and later in life come to know they are wrong and will know their original gender”. Her mother advised her to make notes of what was said in class the next time this occurred. About a month later, on 8 February 2022, Pupil A took brief notes of the Claimant's comments and informed her parents. Her mother used the notes as the basis of an email to the School, complaining that the Claimant's comments were “very distressing” to Pupil A “who strongly believes people should be who they are” and she is “exploring who she is – as many children are at this age”. Pupil A later referred to her own sexuality in her oral evidence to the PCP.

The School took disciplinary proceedings against the Claimant. She was suspended in March 2022 and dismissed in May 2022. The details of the School's disciplinary proceedings were not provided to the Court.

PCP and Secretary of State proceedings

The School referred the matter to the Teaching Regulation Agency (“TRA”). On 14 July 2023, the Claimant was sent a letter informing her that her case would be heard by a PCP sitting in public. The Claimant was invited to make an application for all or some of the hearing to be held in private, pursuant to paragraph 5.85 of the Disciplinary Procedures, but did not do so.

The PCP comprised two teachers and a lay panellist, assisted by a legal adviser. The hearing, which was held in public, took place over 5 days. The PCP heard evidence from the Claimant, Pupil A and her mother, and three character witnesses. Brief written statements from five other pupils were also in evidence.

The allegations and the findings were as follows:

“You are guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct [Proved]

and/or conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute [Not Proved]

in that:

1) Whilst working as a teacher at Bishop Justus Church of England School in or around February 2022 you made inappropriate comments whilst teaching a class with words to the effect of:

a. Being and/or LGBTQ+ is ‘not fine’; [Proved]

b. LGBTQ+ is a sin; [Proved]

c. that God should be before LGBTQ+; [Proved]

d. God will love you more if you are not LGBTQ+; [Not Proved]

e. people will always be seen by God as having their birth gender; [Proved]

f. that transgender people are ‘just confused’ [Proved]

2) Your conduct at Allegation 1 was contrary to Fundamental British values in that it lacked tolerance to those with different beliefs. [Not Proved]”

The PCP considered that the proven comments at 1(a) to (f) were inappropriate for the following reasons:

“Having found that Ms Leger made the comments as set out at particulars 1a, 1b, 1c, 1e and 1f, the panel went on to consider if those comments were inappropriate. In doing so, the panel had regard to the following factors:

1. The duty on teachers and schools to provide a broad and balanced curriculum.

The panel was provided with PowerPoint slides taken from the scheme of work which comprised of a number of lessons. Prior to delivery Ms Leger discussed concerns about LGBT content with the School chaplain. In her statement, she wrote “I remember leaving and saying that this was going too far now and that I am going to tell them (my pupils) the Truth…”. The panel noted that Ms Leger was determined to tell the class her views.

Following this, Ms Leger decided in lesson 4 on 8 February 2022 to tell her class that she would not be teaching lesson 6 because of LGBTQ+ content, which for religious reasons she could not support.

This resulted...