Teachers Defence Service
Case Law: Aquilina v Secretary of State for Education (2024) - Judicial RewiewCase Law for Teachers
English Case Law
About Us
Teachers Defence Service represents teachers in Teaching Regulatory Agency for England (TRA) Professional Conduct Inquiries.
Below we summarise the main elements of the case of: Aquilina, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1998 (Admin). This case is relevant to England but may be of interest to teachers across the UK.
Summary
The teacher challenged to interpretation of the law (The legal framework governing the regulation of the teaching profession is contained in Part 8 of the Education Act 2002, and the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012), as applied by the panel. Held, that the law was correctly interpreted and followed.
Allegations
It was alleged that the teacher had shared with her husband the personal data concerning pupils.
Held
Of the matters found proved, the professional conduct panel of the Teachers Regulatory Authority found that the teacher (a headmistress) had engaged in conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. This finding was upheld by the high court, and the various legal challenges advanced were each rejected. The Secretary of State advanced the following principles, which were upheld by the court:
a. The claim stems from an erroneous interpretation of the section. The Claimant seeks to add a qualification that the first limb is limited to professional conduct and the second limb to nonprofessional conduct, but there is no basis in the legislative text for this rigid distinction. The categories are purposely broadly defined and conduct may fall within only one category, both categories or neither. That is the clear, straightforward and correct interpretation of the statutory language.
b. Misconduct only constitutes “unacceptable professional conduct” where it is “of a serious nature, falling significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher”. As such, in relation to that limb specifically, where a PCP finds conduct falls short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher but not significantly so, then it would not be deemed to be sufficiently serious for the purposes of the definition and would not constitute unacceptable professional conduct. Misconduct which may bring the profession into disrepute does not have the similar threshold of misconduct “falling significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher”. Therefore, misconduct which does not meet this threshold may still be judged by a PCP as potentially bringing the profession into disrepute. The Claimant reads into the legislation that any conduct falling within either limb must reach a threshold of “serious”. This does not arise from either the statutory language or any relevant authority. There is no express threshold of misconduct being “serious”, but plainly any misconduct must be sufficiently serious that it “could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher”.
c. The decision of the PCP was clearly rational. There is nothing inherently irrational in finding that conduct did not fall “significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher” such that it did not constitute unacceptable professional conduct; but nevertheless, due to the nature of the conduct, it could damage the public’s perception of a teacher and therefore constitute conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute.
Our Services
We can provide advice and guidance, or advocacy services (including representation at hearings), if instructed, to assist you in dealing with teaching regulators. Our fees are competitive. Give us a call on 020 3012 0402 without obligation and in strict confidence to see how we can assist you. Or, use our Contact Form.
Teachers Defence Service
Quick Links
ENQUIRIES
HOW TO CONTACT US
GUIDANCE
Preparation for Regulatory Submissions and Hearings
Our Other Services
We also represent teachers in disciplinary hearings, criminal prosecutions, DBS matters, barring challenges, appeals, civil and employment law. Read More