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

The exercise of proportionality involves weighing the competing interests, in particular the public interest in maintaining the standards of and the confidence in the teaching profession, while recognising the adverse effects which a prohibition order will have on any teacher who is made subject to one. The proportionality balance involves considering whether there might be alternative means of meeting the public interests which would have less impact on the teachers who are to be made subject to the prohibition orders. It is an exercise which the SSE is particularly well-placed to undertake, and on which its assessments are entitled to a significant degree of deference.

In this case, the SSE conducted a detailed proportionality assessment in both cases.

In the case of MD, the SSE noted the seriousness of the findings of misconduct. Express consideration was given to whether a less intrusive measure would meet the public interest of protecting pupils and maintaining public confidence in the teaching profession, and of the impact which the prohibition order would have on MD. The only available alternative was a public statement of the findings (there being no power to impose conditions on the Appellants’ employment, which was the course the Appellants argue could have been followed).

The SSE noted the Panel’s finding that operating an unregistered school raises safeguarding issues because it deprives the children in that school of regulatory oversight to ensure that educational standards are being met and that the school is an appropriate environment. The SSE also took account of the risk of re-offending. Taking all of those matters into account, the SSE decided that a prohibition order with a 5-year review period was necessary to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. I do not believe that comprehensive analysis can be faulted. It certainly cannot be said to be “wrong”, containing no error of principle, either in the matters taken into account or in leaving some relevant matter out of account.

The same is true of SF. The SSE reviewed essentially the same factors, but also the positive findings the SSE had made about SF. Specific consideration was given to the PCP’s recommendation of a lesser penalty, and whether it would meet the public interest, and the view was taken that simply publishing the PCP’s findings would not be a proportionate response. The evidence of SF’s prior contribution to education and previous good character were taken into account in arriving at the earliest possible review period, of two years. Once again, this analysis cannot be said to be “wrong”, containing no error of principle, either in the matters taken into account or in leaving some relevant matter out of account.

I accept that these events – the conviction and the prohibition order – have caused SF considerable stress, and that that may well have affected his health (and I have had regard to the medical evidence filed, albeit it is quite limited). However, the prohibition orders were not imposed by way of punishment but for the purposes of protecting pupils and maintaining public confidence in the teaching professions. In these circumstances, I was not persuaded that any affect on SF’s health could justify the court substituting its own decision for that of the SSE.