“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.”
“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 on8 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 in pupils not receiving a balanced curriculum in line with the School's religious education policy, namely "Religious education will challenge stereotypes, misinformation and misconceptions about race, gender and religion. It seeks to present religions and world views in all their richness and diversity in terms of beliefs, traditions, customs and lifestyle in a sensitive and accurate way in order to encourage a positive attitude towards diversity. All questions, views, and opinions will be treated with sensitivity and respect." 2. The uniquely influential role teachers play in views of the world and the risk of introducing bias. The panel had in mind paragraph 3.32 of the Department for Education departmental advice for school leaders, school staff, governing bodies and local authorities on theEquality Act 2010 and schools, dated May 2014, which stated: "3.32 – …it should be remembered that school teachers are in a very influential position and their actions and responsibilities are bound by much wider duties than this legislation". This is relevant when considering Ms Leger's decision only to present her views on this aspect of the curriculum. 3. Not taking account of other strands of Christian views or of those with no religious views. The panel noted the School's Religious Studies policy, which states: "…we not only promote a rigorously academic curriculum but also foster students' curiosity and ability to question critically and think deeply…" "…although the teacher is objective and challenges the students to critically evaluate religious beliefs and practices, we live in a pluralistic society and indeed RS teachers and students are of different faiths and none. Opinions are not accepted freely but challenged and students are encouraged to see how beliefs and ideas impact on everyday life and become actualised in reality." Ms Leger's conduct was therefore not aligned with School policy.”
“The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Ms Leger in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Ms Leger was in breach of the following standards: ▪ Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others ▪ Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. The panel found that Ms Leger's comments lacked respect for the rights of others. However, the panel did not find that her comments derived from a lack of tolerance. The panel was concerned that in expressing her personal beliefs as the Truth, Ms Leger failed to understand that her position of influence as a teacher could have a disproportionate impact on all pupils in the class. The panel found that Ms Leger's actions were at risk of upsetting pupils in the lesson. However, the panel was satisfied that Ms Leger had no intention of causing distress to pupils. In having regard to the ethos, policies and practices of the School, the panel noted that Ms Leger had: • Previously not shown a video about LGBTQ+ issues to her class; and • Removed an Equality Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) poster which featured three candles bearing these words but made no reference to LGBT. The panel found that Ms Leger's choice not to present a balanced view undermined the School community's aspiration to provide a supportive environment for children who may be exploring sexual identity.”
“1. The panel's objective in this process is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of Ms Leger's rights under Article 9 and 10. The panel considered that its role was to maintain professional standards and to reflect the teacher's position of influence in society. 2. The panel concluded that the objective is rationally connected. The panel considered that the restriction is not to prevent the teacher from holding, or in line with School policies, sharing her views or those of a specific group. It is about, in doing so, excluding, over a period of time, alternative views. 3. The panel found that there is no less intrusive measure that could be adopted at this stage of these proceedings, but this is a consideration that the panel will take account of at the next stage. 4. In light of the above, the panel was satisfied that a fair balance has been struck between the rights of Ms Leger and the interests of the public/community.”
“I agree with the panel that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”
“A professional conduct panel may exclude the public from a hearing or any part of a hearing— (a) where it appears to the panel to be in the interests of justice or the public interest to do so; or (b) where the teacher who is the subject of the case requests that the hearing or part of the hearing should be in private and the panel does not consider it to be contrary to the public interest to do so.”
“A teacher is expected to demonstrate consistently high standards of personal and professional conduct. The following statements define the behaviour and attitudes which set the required standard for conduct throughout a teacher’s career. • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: • treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position • having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs • ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.” • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: • treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position • having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs • ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.”
“Sexual orientation and marriage and civil partnership 3.24 Schools need to make sure that all gay, lesbian or bi-sexual pupils, or the children of gay, lesbian or bi-sexual parents, are not singled out for different and less favourable treatment from that given to other pupils. They should check that there are no practices which could result in unfair, less favourable treatment of such pupils. For example, it would be unlawful for a school to refuse to let a gay pupil become a prefect because of his sexual orientation. 3.25 Maintained secondary schools have a legal requirement to teach about the 'nature of marriage' when they are delivering sex education. Many academies (including free schools) also teach about this topic, and when they do so, they must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance on sex and relationship education. Schools must accurately state the facts about marriage of same sex couples under the law of England and Wales, in a way that is appropriate to the age and level of understanding and awareness of the pupils. 3.26 Teaching about marriage must be done in a sensitive, reasonable, respectful and balanced way. Teachers are subject to professional requirements, the school curriculum, school policies, and anti-discrimination duties towards colleagues and pupils. 3.27 No school, or individual teacher, is under a duty to support, promote or endorse marriage of same sex couples. Teaching should be based on facts and should enable pupils to develop an understanding of how the law applies to different relationships. Teachers must have regard to statutory guidance on sex and relationship education, and to meet duties under equality and human rights law. Sexual orientation and religion or belief 3.28 There is a relationship between protection because of sexual orientation and protection of religious freedom. Protection in the area of discrimination on grounds of religion or belief and the right to manifest one’s religion or belief is set out earlier in this chapter (3.11 – 3.16). 3.29 Many people’s views on sexual orientation/sexual activity are themselves grounded in religious belief. Some schools with a religious character have concerns that they may be prevented from teaching in line with their religious ethos. Teachers have expressed concerns that they may be subject to legal action if they do not voice positive views on same sex relationships, whether or not this view accords with their faith. There are also concerns that schools with a religious character may teach and act in ways unacceptable to lesbian, gay and bisexual pupils and parents when same sex relationships are discussed because there are no express provisions to prevent this occurring. 3.30 Schools with a religious character, like all schools, have a responsibility for the welfare of the children in their care and to adhere to curriculum guidance. It is not the intention of the Equality Act to undermine their position as long as they continue to uphold their responsibilities in these areas. If their beliefs are explained in an appropriate way in an educational context that takes into account existing guidance on the delivery of Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) and Religious Education (RE), then schools should not be acting unlawfully. 3.31 However, if a school conveyed its belief in a way that involved haranguing, harassing or berating a particular pupil or group of pupils then this would be unacceptable in any circumstances and is likely to constitute unlawful discrimination. 3.32 Where individual teachers are concerned, having a view about something does not amount to discrimination. So it should not be unlawful for a teacher in any school to express personal views on sexual orientation provided that it is done in an appropriate manner and context (for example when responding to questions from pupils, or in an RE or Personal, Social, Health and Economic education (PSHE) lesson). However, it should be remembered that school teachers are in a very influential position and their actions and responsibilities are bound by much wider duties than this legislation. A teacher’s ability to express his or her views should not extend to allowing them to discriminate against others. ”
“All schools may teach about faith perspectives. In particular, schools with a religious character may teach the distinctive faith perspective on relationships, and balanced debate may take place about issues that are seen as contentious.”
“(1) The curriculum for a maintained school or maintained nursery school satisfies the requirements of this section if it is a balanced and broadly based curriculum which— (a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society, and (b) prepares pupils at the school for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of later life.”
“Equal Opportunities Religious education will challenge stereotypes, misinformation and misconceptions about race, gender and religion. It seeks to present religions and world views in all their richness and diversity in terms of beliefs, traditions, customs and lifestyle in a sensitive and accurate way in order to encourage a positive attitude towards diversity. All questions, views, and opinions will be treated with sensitivity and respect.”
“The panel received submissions in relation to the interference with Ms Leger's rights under the European Convention on Human Rights, specifically Article 9 (right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion) and Article 10 (right to freedom of expression). The panel noted the submissions made and the content of the judgments referred to. In particular, the panel was referred to the case of Ngole v University of Sheffield[2019] EWCA Civ 1127 . The panel noted that it had a distinct and fact specific task to assess the conduct of Ms Leger as a teacher. The panel noted that in Ngole, the court stated - "The right to freedom of expression is not an unqualified right: professional bodies and organisations are entitled to place reasonable and proportionate restrictions on those subject to their professional codes; and, just because a belief is said to be a religious belief, does not give a person subject to professional regulation the right to express such beliefs in any way he or she sees fit". A central principle of relevant case law relating to interference with an individual's convention rights, and one to which this panel had regard, is that the rights under Article 9 and Article 10 are qualified rights. The rights can be qualified and restricted provided that the restrictions are in accordance with the published law and principles, and pursues a legitimate aim to protect health, morals and public order (by way of example). In regards to freedom of expression, it is established that this can and should be qualified if it has the potential to impact upon the provision of public services or the performance of a professional person's function.”
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public and in private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance. 2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers … 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.”
“40 The Convention principle of legality requires the court to address itself to three distinct questions. The first is whether there is a legal basis in domestic law for the restriction. The second is whether the law or rule in question is sufficiently accessible to the individual who is affected by the restriction, and sufficiently precise to enable him to understand its scope and foresee the consequences of his actions so that he can regulate his conduct without breaking the law. The third is whether, assuming that these two requirements are satisfied, it is nevertheless open to the criticism that it is being applied in a way that is arbitrary because, for example, it has been resorted to in bad faith or in a way that is not proportionate. I derive these principles, which have been mentioned many times in subsequent cases, from Sunday Times v United Kingdom(1979) 2 EHRR 245 , para 49 and also from Winterwerp v The Netherlands(1979) 2 EHRR 387 , para 39; Engel v The Netherlands (No 1)(1976) 1 EHRR 647 , paras 58—59 which were concerned with the principle of legality in the context of article 5(1), Silver v United Kingdom(1983) 5 EHRR 347 , paras 85—90; Liberty v United Kingdom(2008) 48 EHRR 1 , para 59 and Sorvisto v Finland (Application No 19348/04) (unreported) given13 January 2009 , para 112. 41 The word “law” in this context is to be understood in its substantive sense, not its formal one: Kafkaris v Cyprus(2008) 25 BHRC 591 , para 139. This qualification of the concept is important, as it makes it clear that law for this purpose goes beyond the mere words of the statute. As the Grand Chamber said in that case, in paras 139—140, it has been held to include both enactments of lower rank than statutes and unwritten law. Furthermore, it implies qualitative requirements, including those of accessibility and foreseeability. Accessibility means that an individual must know from the wording of the relevant provision and, if need be, with the assistance of the court’s interpretation of it what acts and omissions will make him criminally liable: see also Gulmez v Turkey (Application No 16330/02) (unreported) given20 May 2008 , para 49. The requirement of foreseeability will be satisfied where the person concerned is able to foresee, if need be with appropriate legal advice, the consequences which a given action may entail. A law which confers a discretion is not in itself inconsistent with this requirement, provided the scope of the discretion and the manner of its exercise are indicated with sufficient clarity to give the individual protection against interference which is arbitrary: Goodwin v United Kingdom(1996) 22 EHRR 123 , para 31; Sorvisto v Finland, para 112.”
“20. ….. the question depends on an exacting analysis of the factual case advanced in defence of the measure, in order to determine (i) whether its objective is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of a fundamental right; (ii) whether it is rationally connected to the objective; (iii) whether a less intrusive measure could have been used; and (iv) whether, having regard to these matters and to the severity of the consequences, a fair balance has been struck between the rights of the individual and the interests of the community. These four requirements are logically separate, but in practice they inevitably overlap because the same facts are likely to be relevant to more than one of them.”
“52. ….. The right to freedom of expression does not in terms include the right not to express an opinion but it has long been held that it does. A recent example in this jurisdiction is RT (Zimbabwe) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (United Nations High Comr for Refugees intervening)[2013] 1 AC 152 . The issue was whether asylum seekers should be sent back to Zimbabwe where they would face a real risk of persecution if they refused to demonstrate positive support for the then regime in that country. Citing, among other cases, both Kokkinakis v Greece 17 EHRR 397 and Buscarini v San Marino 30 EHRR 208, Lord Dyson JSC held that the principle applied as much to political opinions as it did to religious belief: “Nobody should be forced to have or express a political opinion in which he does not believe”(para 42). 53 The respondent suggests that the jurisprudence in relation to “compelled speech” has been developed principally in the United States as a result of the First Amendment. There is indeed long-standing Supreme Court authority for the proposition that “the right to freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all”: see Wooley v Maynard (1977) 430 US 705, 714, per Burger CJ, citing West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette (1943) 319 US 624, 633—634. But in the light of Laramore and RT (Zimbabwe), and the Strasbourg case law on which they are based, it cannot seriously be suggested that the same principles do not apply in the context of articles 9 and 10 of the Convention.”
“The right to freedom of expression is not an unqualified right: professional bodies and organisations are entitled to place reasonable and proportionate restrictions on those subject to their professional codes; and, just because a belief is said to be a religious belief, does not give a person subject to professional regulation the right to express such beliefs in any way he or she sees fit.”
“111. The Court also notes that in the decisions of Karaduman v Turkey (App. No. 16278/90,3 May 1993 ) and Dahlab v Switzerland (App. No. 42393/98,15 February 2001 ) the Convention institutions found that in a democratic society the State was entitled to place restrictions on the wearing of the Islamic headscarf if it was incompatible with the pursued aim of protecting the rights and freedoms of others, public order and public safety. In the Karaduman case, measures taken in universities to prevent certain fundamentalist religious movements from exerting pressure on students who did not practise their religion or who belonged to another religion were found to be justified underArt.9(2) of the Convention . Consequently, it is established that institutions of higher education may regulate the manifestation of the rites and symbols of a religion by imposing restrictions as to the place and manner of such manifestation with the aim of ensuring peaceful co-existence between students of various faiths and thus protecting public order and the beliefs of others. In the Dahlab case, which concerned the teacher of a class of small children, the Court stressed among other matters the “powerful external symbol” which her wearing a headscarf represented and questioned whether it might have some kind of proselytising effect, seeing that it appeared to be imposed on women by a religious precept that was hard to reconcile with the principle of gender equality. It also noted that wearing the Islamic headscarf could not easily be reconciled with the message of tolerance, respect for others and, above all, equality and non-discrimination that all teachers in a democratic society should convey to their pupils.”
“60. …. The right to manifest one’s religion and beliefs under article 9(2) and the right to exercise one’s freedom of speech underarticle 10(2) of the Convention are qualified rights. It is fundamental that teachers should not only educate but that they should at all times treat the children in their care with dignity and respect and that they should safeguard their well-being. Insofar as the Teachers’ Standards qualify a teacher’s right to manifest their religion or beliefs and their freedom of expression, I have no doubt that such restrictions are proportionate in the sense identified in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2)[2014] AC 700 in that: 60.1 the objectives of treating children with dignity and respect and of safeguarding their well-being are sufficiently important to justify the limitations; 60.2 the standards are rationally connected to such objectives; 60.3 a less intrusive measure could not be used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of the objectives; and 60.4 the importance of such objectives to the extent that the standards contribute to their achievement outweighs their effects on the teacher’s rights. 61. By virtue of their immaturity and inexperience of the world, children and young people are vulnerable and many children struggle as they navigate adolescence. Whatever a teacher’s religious or philosophical beliefs about the immutability of a person’s gender or the morality of homosexuality, it is their professional obligation: 61.1 to treat their pupils with dignity and respect; and 61.2 to safeguard the well-being of all children in their class. Further, teachers must understand that adolescence may be particularly difficult for children who either identify as transgender or are questioning their gender identity (such as pupil A), or who identify as gay, lesbian or bisexual or are questioning their sexuality (such as pupil B). 62. Just because misgendering a transgender pupil might not be unlawful does not mean that it is appropriate conduct for a teacher or that, when done repeatedly and deliberately both in class and on national television in breach of the school’s instructions and ethos such that distress is caused to the child, it cannot amount to professional misconduct. 63. In my judgment, the panel correctly identified its role when it observed: “Broad representations were made on behalf of Mr Sutcliffe that this case related to issues of freedom of expression and speech in the abstract. It was not the function of this panel to assess such broader issues. The panel has no role in determining the veracity, reasonableness or otherwise of Mr Sutcliffe’s beliefs. …… The panel was mindful of Mr Sutcliffe’s strong and sincere religious beliefs rooted in his deep faith which led him to have a personal conviction against using preferred pronouns. Mr Sutcliffe has a right to hold this belief. It is the manner in which Mr Sutcliffe chose to manifest this belief to which objection could justifiably be taken if he failed to have regard to pupil A’s dignity, to treat him with respect, or to safeguard pupil A’s well-being.””
“1. The panel's objective in this process is sufficiently important to justify the limitation of Ms Leger's rights under Article 9 and 10. The panel considered that its role was to maintain professional standards and to reflect the teacher's position of influence in society. 2. The panel concluded that the objective is rationally connected. The panel considered that the restriction is not to prevent the teacher from holding, or in line with School policies, sharing her views or those of a specific group. It is about, in doing so, excluding, over a period of time, alternative views. 3. The panel found that there is no less intrusive measure that could be adopted at this stage of these proceedings, but this is a consideration that the panel will take account of at the next stage. 4. In light of the above, the panel was satisfied that a fair balance has been struck between the rights of Ms Leger and the interests of the public/community.”
“The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct within the teaching profession and that prohibition strikes the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest, if they are in conflict. The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Ms Leger were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Ms Leger was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Ms Leger. In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Ms Leger. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, the one that was relevant in this case was: ▪ serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was evidence that Ms Leger’s actions were deliberate. The panel did not accept that this was a one-off incident. Ms Leger’s actions needed to be seen in the context of the ethos, policies and practice of the School, as noted earlier in the panel’s decision. However, the panel found Ms Leger had no intention of causing distress or harm to pupils. There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Leger was acting under duress. The panel was provided with a number of character references. The panel also heard live evidence from three character witnesses. …… The panel went on to discuss whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the teaching profession. The panel considered that this was the least intrusive measure that could be imposed on the facts of this case (as per Principle 3 of the Bank Mellat principles).”
“1 Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. 2 There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“A professional conduct panel may exclude the public from a hearing or any part of a hearing— (a) where it appears to the panel to be in the interests of justice or the public interest to do so; or (b) where the teacher who is the subject of the case requests that the hearing or part of the hearing should be in private and the panel does not consider it to be contrary to the public interest to do so.”
“In 2023, TRA reviewed the policy which underpins how we publish information related to teacher misconduct cases. From9 January 2024 all published decisions in which there is a finding of serious misconduct but no prohibition order imposed will be removed from GOV.UK automatically 2 years after the decision was first published. The details of these no prohibition order cases will no longer be accessible to employers when completing their safer recruitment checks as laid out in Keeping Children Safe in Education statutory guidance.”
“The public interest in publication 32. Providing information about teacher misconduct decisions and the reasons for them benefits the public, the teaching profession and employers by helping them to understand the standards that are expected of teachers. Publicity about decisions where a teacher has committed serious misconduct (whether or not a prohibition order is made) maintains confidence in the teaching profession, helps to illustrate what breaches of teaching standards may (or may not) result in an adverse finding or prohibition (whether lifelong or reviewable) and is consistent with the principle of open justice. 33. It is of paramount importance that children and young people are protected when they are at school and college and that there are robust arrangements to safeguard and educate pupils and students effectively. Publication equips employers to make informed judgements on the suitability of applicants applying for teaching positions, in line with the ‘safer recruitment’ principles set out in [‘Keeping children safe in education 2023: Statutory guidance for schools]. It is clearly in the public interest for all those who use the services of teachers (including schools and other educators, as well as parents who engage tutors) to know whether the said individual has a finding of serious misconduct against them by their regulator. Where a teacher is found guilty of serious misconduct, a check of the list of prohibited persons alone would not provide the reasons why a prohibition order was (or was not) made in light of this finding. Employers may use these published decisions to help them to assess the suitability of a given candidate for a particular role, providing a more objective basis for their decision-making than might otherwise be available from other sources (such as media coverage or referees). Publishing these details equips schools, colleges and others to make informed judgements about safeguarding risk and suitability – which may well support teachers found guilty of serious misconduct to return to teaching where a prohibition order was not made. 34. Publicity thus serves to maintain the standards expected of the teaching profession and to safeguard the safety and wellbeing of pupils, teachers and other members of the public. Further, the publication of sufficient information about regulatory decisions to ensure that the public and the profession is able to understand how and why regulatory decisions are made is an essential element in ensuring that the regulator can be held to account and that the public can have confidence in the teaching profession. In cases in which no prohibition order is made the published information will be removed from the gov.uk website after a period of two years. 35. There are mitigations in place to prevent the publication of information where the benefits of publication are outweighed by competing considerations. This may lead to the exclusion from publication of (for example) personal data relating to third parties (such as the names of persons other than the teacher), or sensitive personal data (such as health information), where these are not directly relevant to the decision. TRA may also choose to redact certain information from the published document, if it determines that it is not in the public interest to disclose this. Teachers or other persons may apply to restrict certain material from publication, which will lead to the decision maker weighing the proportionality and impact of redacting the information against the public interest in publishing it. Whether or not an application is made, the PCP may make suggestions to the decision maker that certain information is redacted. In this case, the PCP did not make any such suggestion. 36. Publication of decisions and reasons therefore ensures informed and robust judgements about the suitability of an individual for a specific post. In this case, for the reasons outlined above, the public interest in publishing the findings in the context of the proven allegations weigh significantly in favour of publication. The publication of the findings is a lesser sanction than making a prohibition order but supports the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and the upholding of proper standards of conduct within the teaching profession.”
“The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct within the teaching profession and that prohibition strikes the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest, if they are in conflict. The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Ms Leger were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Ms Leger was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. ….. The panel went on to discuss whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the teaching profession. The panel considered that this was the least intrusive measure that could be imposed on the facts of this case (as per Principle 3 of the Bank Mellat principles).”
“I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”