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

Fecha: 31-Oct-2025

PCP proceedings concerning SF

PCP proceedings concerning SF

23.

In advance of the meeting of his PCP (which took place on 26 February 2024), SF asked for the allegation to be considered without a hearing, and provided a Statement of Agreed Facts admitting that he had been convicted of a relevant criminal offence (i.e. one that is relevant to a person’s fitness to be a teacher). He made extensive written submissions:

He claimed he acted on Ofsted advice.

ii)

He suggested he had been convicted due to factual errors.

iii)

Various of the arguments advanced unsuccessfully before Westminster Magistrate’s court were repeated, including challenging the evidence of the Ofsted inspectors as to the events at the inspection (evidence which the Chief Magistrate had accepted when finding the case proved to the criminal standard).

iv)

He referred to “the exaggeration of the negatives and errors put forward to the magistrate’s court” which he said had led to his conviction.

24.

Those submissions did not acknowledge responsibility or error.

25.

The PCP in SF’s case found that he had been convicted of a s.96(2) offence (as noted above this was not disputed). The conduct which led to this conviction was found to be a breach of the Teachers’ Standards.

26.

SF filed further mitigation submissions. Once again, these suggested that SF’s actions had been misinterpreted. SF did express contrition, albeit suggesting he had misinterpreted the law and that Department for Education guidance was “somewhat ambiguous”. He repeated the suggestion his conviction was due to “factual errors”.

27.

The PCP considered what recommendation to make to the SSE so far as a prohibition order was concerned. Having reviewed the matter, the PCP recommended that no prohibition order be made in SF’s case.