![AC-2024-LON-001202 and AC-2024-LON-001207 - [2025] EWHC 2810 (Admin)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_fi51A75.png){kind=logo}
Administrative Court
AC-2024-LON-001202 and AC-2024-LON-001207 - [2025] EWHC 2810 (Admin)
Fecha: 31-Oct-2025
The decision of the SSE
The decision of the SSE
Reflecting the split statutory scheme which I have summarised, it was for the SSE to decide whether or not to make prohibition orders and on what terms.
In MD’s case, the Decision-Maker acting for the SSE made a prohibition order with a 5-year review period.
In SF’s case, the Decision-Maker acting for the SSE concluded that a prohibition order was necessary, and imposed a prohibition order with a two-year review period.
Substantial reasons were given for both of those submissions, to which I return below.
- Heading
- Section 1
- The Appellants’ convictions
- The regulatory scheme in relation to allegations of teacher misconduct
- The proceedings before the PCP
- PCP proceedings concerning MD
- PCP proceedings concerning SF
- The decision of the SSE
- The Appellants’ appeals
- The grounds of appeal
- The position in overview
- Ground 1: “Insight and Remorse”
- Ground 2: the risk of repetition
- Ground 3: proportionality
- Ground 4: the Fresh Evidence ground
- Ground 5: the Procedural Irregularity Ground
- Conclusions