[2025] UKUT 308 (AAC)

failed to take into account the primacy of parental rights to determine what education their child receives;

at paragraph 174, wrongly concluded that the statutory framework regulating who works in schools was sufficient in circumstances where (i) none of the parties had made submissions on what that statutory framework was, or how it functioned, and (ii) that statutory framework must include the Statutory Guidance which expressly states that this information should be made public. The Commissioner’s argument that it was for the Appellant to show that the statutory framework provided inadequate protection misses the point. The Appellant’s case was that the statutory framework provided adequate protection if the requirements of the Statutory Guidance were followed. The Tribunal made the same mistake as the Commissioner;

at paragraph 176, wrongly took into account whether the Appellant was ‘unable’ to make a complaint, when the relevant question was whether the effectiveness of a complaint was limited by her not knowing the identity of ‘that individual’. It ought to stand to reason that it is easier for a parent to make an effective complaint about the appropriateness of a named, rather than anonymous, person;

failed to take into account that the Appellant’s ability to discuss the teaching of ‘that individual’ with her daughter was limited by her ignorance of identity. It was not for the Appellant to prove that knowledge of identity would enable better parent-child discussion when the parent did not know the identity of those teaching their child.