O v The Secretary of State for Education National College for Teaching and Leadership (Interested Party)

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
JudgeMr Stephen Morris
Judgment Date17 January 2014
Neutral Citation[2014] EWHC 22 (Admin)
Docket NumberCase No: CO/3693/2013
CourtQueen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
Date17 January 2014
Between:
O
Appellant
and
The Secretary of State for Education
Respondent

and

National College for Teaching and Leadership
Interested Party

[2014] EWHC 22 (Admin)

Before:

Mr Stephen Morris QC

(Sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge)

Case No: CO/3693/2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE

QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AT LEEDS

Royal Courts of Justice

Strand, London, WC2A 2LL

Alex Offer (instructed by Lester Morrill, Solicitors) for the Appellant

Rory Dunlop (instructed by Angela Mitchell, Solicitor,) for the Respondent and the Interested Party

I direct that pursuant to CPR PD 39A para 6.1 no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic.

Mr Stephen Morris QC

Mr Stephen Morris QC

Introduction

1

This is an appeal by Ms O ("the Appellant"), a teacher, pursuant to regulation 17 of the Teachers' Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 SI 2012 No 560 ("the Regulations"), against a prohibition order made on 7 March 2013 by the Secretary of State for Education ("the Secretary of State") under s.141B of the Education Act 2002 ("the Prohibition Order"). By the Prohibition Order, the Secretary of State prohibited the Appellant indefinitely from carrying on teaching and thereby also barred her from seeking restoration of her eligibility to teach.

2

The Prohibition Order was made on the recommendation, and consequential upon the findings, of the Professional Conduct Panel ("the Panel") of the Teaching Agency. The Teaching Agency has now merged with the National College for School Leadership to form the National College for Teaching and Leadership ("NCTL"). The Secretary of State is the named respondent to the appeal and the NCTL is named as an interested party. The NCTL is a government agency which operates on behalf of the Secretary of State and thus there is no material distinction between the respondent and the interested party. Accordingly, in this judgment, I refer to both parties as "the Respondent".

3

Following an oral hearing, the Panel, by its decision announced on 6 March 2013 ("the Decision") found that the Appellant had been guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and of conduct that might bring the teaching profession into disrepute. The basis of this finding were findings of fact that the Appellant had misconducted herself in the period between 2007 and 2010 in respect of four allegations (referred to as Particulars) as follows:

(1) an inappropriate relationship with a pupil — Pupil A — at the school at which she taught; involving conduct of a physical nature and conduct which was sexually motivated;

(2) an inappropriate relationship with another pupil at the school — Pupil B;

(3) failure to follow appropriate safeguarding procedures in relation to Pupil B;

(4)(b) failure to follow reasonable management instructions.

Particular (4)(a) was found not proven.

4

In this appeal, the Appellant challenges the findings on Particulars (1) and (2). The Appellant denies that she had an inappropriate relationship with either Pupil A or Pupil B. Particulars (3) and (4)(b) were and are admitted by the Appellant. In these respects the Appellant accepts that she made an error of judgment and a professional mistake.

5

In the course of argument, it became clear that the essential dispute on this appeal relates to Particular (1) concerning Pupil A. The Appellant contends that, if her challenge to Particular (1) is upheld, neither the admitted allegations nor Particular (2) are of such gravity as to justify the recommendation for a prohibition order. It is not possible to discern from the Panel's reasoning what conclusions the Panel would have come to if it had found only the admitted conduct and Particular (2) established. On the other hand, she accepts that if she is unsuccessful on Particular (1), but successful on Particular (2), nevertheless the Prohibition Order would remain justified and the appeal in relation to Particular (2) becomes academic. Thus, whilst formally part of the grounds of appeal, either way the challenge to Particular (2) will not affect the outcome of this appeal.

6

Accordingly, the Appellant's case on this appeal is that the Decision in respect of Pupil A is wrong and must be quashed, that it follows that the entire Prohibition Order itself must be quashed and that the case should be remitted for re-hearing by a differently constituted panel.

7

On Particular (1), the Panel concluded that it preferred the evidence of Pupil A, to that of the Appellant, because her evidence was consistent, detailed and credible. The Appellant contends, first, that the Panel was wrong to accept Pupil A's evidence over that of the Appellant, secondly, that the Panel failed to give adequate reasons for the Decision, and in particular for preferring Pupil A's evidence, and thirdly, that the Panel's conduct of the matter infringed the Appellant's rights under Article 6 ECHR, by failing to give effect to the principle of equality of arms.

The Factual background

The persons involved

8

In view of the sensitive nature of the allegations made, anonymity orders have been made. In this judgment, the parties and other matters are referred to by way of appropriate abbreviation so as to prevent the identification of the Appellant and the complainants.

9

The Appellant is now aged 35; she was 29 at the time of events in 2007. In September 2002 she was employed as a newly qualified French teacher at a high school ("the School"). In September 2007 she was promoted to Head of Year. In late 2007, she had a female partner.

10

Pupil A was a pupil at the School. She was born in 1991 and, in the course of the events in 2007, she had her 16th birthday. She was 21 by the time of the Panel hearing. Pupil B was another female pupil at the School of similar age. JP was a male pupil of similar age.

11

Other relevant staff at the School were as follows: EC, who was Co-Head Teacher from September 2007 and then became head teacher from April 2009. I refer to EC as "the Head". FJW was the deputy head teacher from 2009 onwards who carried out the School investigation, referred to below. AH was the School Safeguarding Officer. JG and AS were other teachers at the School.

The main allegations in outline

12

It is alleged that the Appellant had an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A towards the end of 2007. This had started in the course of a school trip to France, on which the Appellant was one of three supervising teachers and continued on return to the School in October and November 2007. The existence of this alleged relationship was first raised with the School by Pupil A's mother in May 2009. It is also alleged that the Appellant had an inappropriate relationship with Pupil B by communicating with her personally by email, MSN and on music websites and that she failed to report a safeguarding matter relating to Pupil B.

13

During the police and school investigations, the Appellant accepted she had given lifts home to Pupil A, but denied she had engaged in any form of inappropriate relationship with Pupils A or B. The Appellant's case was, and is, that Pupil A is an attention seeker and troubled teenager with a known history of making up stories. On the other hand, the Appellant accepted she should have reported the safeguarding matter relating to Pupil B.

The Relevant Events

October and November 2007

14

In October 2007 the Appellant led a school trip to France. Pupil A, who was 15 at the time, was on that trip. The other teachers on the trip were JG and another, male, teacher, HG. A number of events were said to have occurred in the course of that trip which amount to evidence of an inappropriate relationship between the Appellant and Pupil A. It is not disputed that, on one occasion, they sat together on the coach and communicated by written notes (although they gave different accounts of what those notes said). They sat next to each other on a fairground ride. On the last evening on the trip, in a hotel in Paris, the Appellant went into Pupil A's bathroom when Pupil A was there, after a report of a problem with the shower. Thereafter Appellant spent some time in Pupil A's bedroom, allegedly allowing Pupil A and her room-mates to style her hair. Other contact of a personal nature is said to have taken place at the Eiffel Tower and on the ferry home.

15

On their return to England, and in October and November 2007, the Appellant began to give Pupil A extra lessons in French after the end of the school day. Whilst how many such lessons there were and who else attended are disputed, it is not in dispute that on more than one occasion it was just Pupil A and the Appellant in the classroom, nor that, after lessons, the Appellant took Pupil A home in her car. Pupil A alleged that on a number of occasions during these lessons, she went into a store cupboard (at times also referred to as a "store room") with the Appellant where they hugged, kissed and were sexually intimate. In particular Pupil A described two such encounters in a store cupboard, the first of which took place the day after her 16th birthday and the second of which happened when she missed an English lesson shortly after lunchtime. The Appellant denies that these encounters took place.

16

At around this time, in November 2007, the Appellant noticed that Pupil A was on a website — the "Black Eyed Peas" website — on a computer at the School. Pupil A was not allowed access to such websites. On that website, there were two photographs of Pupil A, one in a bra and one in a basque and Pupil A was receiving explicit sexual communications...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Wallace v Secretary of State for Education
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 27 January 2017
    ...or other irregularity in the proceedings below'. The appeal is by way of re-hearing (see O v Secretary of State for Education [2014] EWHC 22 (Admin) at paragraphs 54–58 and R (Lonnie) v National College for Teaching and Leadership [2014] EWHC 4351 (Admin) at paragraphs 17–22). I gratefully ......
  • Charles Stuart Craig v Farriers Registration Council
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 5 April 2017
    ...for a s.15(3) appeal is not made in CPR Practice Direction 52D. (See, by analogy, discussion in O v Secretary of State for Education [2014] EWHC 22 (Admin)§54). However where the appeal court is being asked to reverse findings of fact based on oral evidence, there is little, if any, differe......
  • R Kingston v Secretary of State for Education
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 27 January 2017
    ...gratefully what was said by Mr Stephen Morris QC sitting as a deputy High Court judge in O v The Secretary of State for Education [2014] EWHC 22 Admin. At paragraph 57, he said this: 'On such an appeal in general, this means deciding whether the decision below can be said to be wrong. On is......
  • Duncan McTier v Secretary of State for Education
    • United Kingdom
    • Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court)
    • 16 February 2017
    ...commended by Mr Stephen Morris QC sitting as a deputy judge of this court (as he then was) in O v Secretary of State for Education [2014] EWHC 22 (Admin) at paragraphs 54–57. The Facts 8 Mr McTier was born on 21 November 1954. He is therefore now aged 62. During his career he has taught at ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Table of Cases
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Assets of Community Value. Law and Practice Contents
    • 29 August 2017
    ...v Wyre Forest District Council [2016] UKFTT CR/2015/0013 (GRC) 4.109, 4.123, 4.143, 6.89, App 3 O v Secretary of State for Education [2014] EWHC 22 (Admin), [2014] ELR 232, [2014] ACD 56 6.128, 6.146 O’Driscoll v Limerick City Council [2012] IEHC 594 4.35 Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts ......
  • Appeals
    • United Kingdom
    • Wildy Simmonds & Hill Assets of Community Value. Law and Practice Contents
    • 29 August 2017
    ...(that is to say, adopting different approaches for different questions) was also approved in O v Secretary of State for Education [2014] EWHC 22 (Admin), [2014] ELR 232, where Mr Stephen Morris QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) said at [55] to [57]: 209 With whom Thorpe LJ agreed. 2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT