Kristie Higgs v Farmor’s School
[2023] EAT 89
Joshua James Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education
25 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 1878 (Admin)
High Court
A teacher lost his job for repeatedly misgendering a transgender student and making harmful comments about homosexuality. Even though he had strong religious beliefs, a court said his actions were wrong and that protecting children is more important than his freedom of speech in this context. The teacher's appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Joshua Sutcliffe, a maths teacher and evangelical Christian, was prohibited from teaching by the Secretary of State for Education.
- •The prohibition order followed a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that might bring the teaching profession into disrepute.
- •The conduct involved misgendering a transgender pupil (Pupil A) repeatedly in class and on national television, and making comments about homosexuality that were deemed harmful to LGBTQ+ pupils.
- •Sutcliffe's appeal challenged the prohibition order, arguing infringement of his Convention rights under Articles 9 and 10.
- •The appeal also argued procedural irregularities and errors in the panel's assessment of his conduct and the appropriateness of the sanction.
Legal Principles
Freedom of thought, conscience, religion, and expression applies to teachers, but does not entitle them to mistreat or endanger vulnerable pupils.
This judgment
Free speech includes offensive, contentious, and provocative speech, but is not absolute and can be limited to protect others.
Redmond-Bate v. DPP (1999) 7 BHRC 375
Teachers must treat pupils with dignity, respect, and safeguard their wellbeing.
Teachers' Standards, Education Act 2002, and this judgment
Article 9 ECHR protects freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 10 ECHR protects freedom of expression.
European Convention on Human Rights
Limitations on Articles 9 and 10 are permissible if prescribed by law and necessary in a democratic society to protect the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 9(2) and Article 10(2) ECHR
Appeals against prohibition orders are reviewed unless a rehearing is in the interests of justice.
CPR 52.21, Ullmer v. Secretary of State for Education [2021] EWHC 1366 (Admin)
The court will not interfere with a panel's findings of fact unless perverse.
This judgment
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The court found that the panel's decision was not perverse, that Sutcliffe's actions constituted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that might bring the profession into disrepute, and that the prohibition order was necessary and proportionate.
Application for extension of time was granted.
The court found that the initial rejection of Sutcliffe's appeal by the King's Bench Division was wrong, and that the one-day delay was an exceptional circumstance justifying an extension of time.