Key Facts
- •Robert MacCallum (Appellant) appealed a decision by the Secretary of State for Education (Respondent) to impose a five-year review period on a prohibition order preventing him from teaching.
- •A Professional Conduct Panel (PCP) found MacCallum guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the teaching profession into disrepute.
- •The misconduct involved a sexual relationship with a vulnerable former pupil and lying about it to the school principal.
- •The PCP recommended a two-year review period, while the Secretary of State imposed a five-year period.
- •The appeal challenged the five-year review period as disproportionately harsh and excessive.
Legal Principles
The Secretary of State has the final decision on whether to make a prohibition order and the review period.
Education Act 2002, s 141B(1)-(2); Lonnie v National College for Teaching and Leadership [2014] EWHC 4351 (Admin)
The Secretary of State is bound by the PCP's findings of fact regarding allegations of misconduct but not by its reasoning on sanction or review period.
Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] PTSR 675
The court should defer to the expertise of the PCP and Secretary of State on matters of professional judgment but can intervene if the decision is disproportionately harsh.
Wallace [2017] PTSR 675; O v Secretary of State for Education [2014] ELR 232; Brown v Secretary of State for Education [2015] EWHC 643 (Admin); McTier v Secretary of State for Education [2017] PTSR 815
The Secretary of State’s decision is reviewed, not reheard, in the High Court unless a rehearing is in the interests of justice.
CPR Part 52; Ullmer v Secretary of State for Education [2021] EWHC 1366 (Admin)
Outcomes
The appeal was dismissed.
The Secretary of State did not improperly go behind the PCP's findings of fact. The Secretary of State was entitled to consider the overall context of the relationship between MacCallum and the former pupil, including her vulnerability, even though some allegations about the relationship during her time as a pupil were not proven. The Secretary of State's assessment of the seriousness of the proven allegations and the appropriate review period was a matter of professional judgment, to which the court should defer.