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

There is (and can be) no dispute that the Appellants were convicted of relevant offences, and they admitted as much to the PCPs and accept those convictions now.

The appeal, therefore, is necessarily confined to the issue of what responsive orders should be made.

As noted in Sutcliffe v SSE [2024] EWHC 1878 (Admin), [46.5]-[46.7], (a) the court will not interfere with a PCP's finding of fact unless it is perverse in the sense that there is either no evidence to support the finding of fact or it is one which no reasonable panel could have reached; (b) both the PCP and the SSE are expert and informed decision-makers who are well placed to assess whether the proven conduct constitutes unacceptable professional conduct or may bring the teaching profession into disrepute and the court will pay proper deference to their expertise before interfering with the exercise of their professional judgment; and (c) the PCP and SSE are also well placed to assess whether a prohibition order is necessary in the public interest, and the court will pay proper deference and only interfere with the decision to impose a prohibition order if satisfied that such decision was wrong.