Robert Maccallum v The Secretary of State for Education
[2024] EWHC 2454 (Admin)
Claudia Aquilina, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Education
1 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 1998 (Admin)
High Court
A headteacher shared private student info with her husband, who worked at the school. A panel said this was bad for the teaching profession's image, even though it wasn't super serious. The court agreed, saying the law allows for this even if the mistake wasn't huge.
Key Facts
- •Claudia Aquilina, an experienced headteacher, shared confidential pupil information with her husband, who had a pastoral role at the school.
- •This information included details about children's involvement with social services and court orders.
- •The disclosure was discovered through data subject access requests.
- •Aquilina was dismissed from her position following a disciplinary hearing.
- •A professional conduct panel (PCP) found her conduct amounted to misconduct but not serious misconduct.
- •The PCP found her conduct brought the teaching profession into disrepute, though they did not recommend a prohibition order.
- •The Secretary of State accepted the PCP's recommendation.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of section 141B(1) of the Education Act 2002 and regulation 7(5) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 regarding 'unacceptable professional conduct' and 'conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute'.
Education Act 2002, Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012
The meaning of 'serious misconduct' in the context of teacher disciplinary proceedings.
Case law (Khan v. Bar Standards Board [2018] EWHC 2184 (Admin), R (Remedy UK) v. General Medical Council [2010] EWHC 1245 (Admin), Beckwith v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2020] EWHC 3231)
The standard of review for decisions of professional conduct panels.
Implied from the court's analysis of the panel's decision.
Outcomes
The claim for judicial review was dismissed.
The court found the PCP correctly interpreted the relevant legislation. The court rejected the claimant's argument that 'unacceptable professional conduct' and 'conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute' are mutually exclusive categories. The court held that even non-serious misconduct can bring the profession into disrepute. The court found the PCP's decision was rational and within their margin of appreciation.