“… although there was clearly enough grounds to instigate the investigation, there was not enough firm, indisputable evidence to warrant a finding of ‘gross misconduct’. I believe that there were grounds for concern substantiated in relation to allegations 1 and 2 but not at a level to justify more serious sanction. This was a particularly difficult case as much stemmed from students’ perceptions, and the other adult who was often in the classroom could not fully substantiate these perceptions”
“Of course, it is right that the Tribunal is reviewing the Secretary of State’s decision, and clearly if it was not a reasonable decision, then the Tribunal will interfere. But, as it seems to me, the Tribunal has its own independent judgment to exercise. It looks at the material that was before the Secretary of State and it decides, on that material, whether in its judgment the relevant prohibition or the relevant sanction was or was not one which ought to have been, in its view, imposed. It may be that one can say, if one is talking in strict judicial review terms, that the decision of the Secretary of State was reasonable in the sense that it is one which was open to him. But that would mean, if that is the narrow basis upon which the Tribunal approaches the matter, that it is disabled from exercising its own judgment. It is the exercise of its own judgment that is important. But, as the regulation makes clear, that judgment must be exercised upon and only upon the material that was before the Secretary of State.”
“the First-Tier Tribunal is under a duty to make its own findings of fact insofar as the relevant and necessary facts are disputed, and on the basis of those findings and the agreed facts, to make its own judgment in respect of the statutory question.”