AC-2024-LON-001202 and AC-2024-LON-001207 - [2025] EWHC 2810 (Admin)

So far as MD is concerned, she made a statement to the PCP expressing her remorse. The PCP stated:

“The panel did not consider that Mrs Daniah demonstrated a level of remorse or insight that provided confidence that she fully understood the implications of her actions. The panel were of the view that Mrs Daniah has expressed her remorse only at the last opportunity and did not fully appreciate the impact of her conduct on how she, or the teaching profession, would be viewed”.

The SSE took that finding into account, observing:

“In my judgment, the lack of full insight means that there is some risk of repetition of this behaviour, and this puts at future risk the well-being of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision”.

The PCP was fully entitled to come to that assessment, and there is no basis on which the court can conclude that the PCP was wrong. Nor is it arguable that the SSE was wrong to place reliance upon that finding or to reach the conclusion that it did. MD’s response is to point to events since the prohibition order was imposed:

However, the court is concerned with reviewing the SSE’s decision, which was necessarily taken by reference to the facts available at that time. That decision cannot, save possibly in the most exceptional circumstances, be impugned by reference to later events. While MD will be able to rely upon these matters, if she is able to substantiate them, on any review application once the requisite time has expired, these matters cannot avail her here. I would note that, were matters otherwise, the court, when acting in an appellate capacity, would have to make fact findings about the matters relied upon and their significance. It is apparent that, by reference to events since the prohibition order, the SSE disputes that MD has shown any insight or genuine remorse.

Turning to SF, the PCP found that the school had been subject to three Ofsted inspections, and that after the first inspection on 12 December 2018, the school was given a warning letter and SF was told about the potential offence. However, the offending had continued. The PCP did refer to character evidence that SF was remorseful, and had taken responsibility for his actions (without itself making an express finding to that effect).

The SSE took that evidence into account. However, it was also noted that SF had been given a warning letter by Ofsted after the 12 December 2018 inspection, and been told about the potential offence, but had continued his involvement with ACE on the basis on which it operated. The SSE concluded that the evidence of SF having attained full insight and remorse was limited. However, the SSE did take account of the evidence of SF’s good character in determining that SF would be able to seek a review after 2 years.

That was an evaluative judgment which the SSE was entitled to reach, and it cannot be said to be a “wrong decision”. The SSE was not bound by any factual assessments made by the PCP as part of its recommended response, and no clear finding of insight and remorse was made in any event.

SF also relies on the same events occurring after the making of the postponement order as MD, but those matters do not assist for the same reasons. They are, however, matters which SF can rely on when seeking a review, which it will be open to him to do in March next year.

Finally, I would note in relation to both Appellants that the manner in which they advanced their cases before the PCP does not sit easily with their contention that they have “expressed unambiguous acceptance of our convictions … and make no attempt to minimise our wrongdoing.”