High Court Upholds Prohibition Order in Mahzia 'Pepe' Hart Case, Emphasizing Importance of Professional Standards

Citation: [2024] EWHC 44 (KB)
Judgment on


In the case of Mahzia ‘Pepe’ Hart v Secretary of State for Education & Anor, the High Court meticulously reviews an appeal against a prohibition order imposed on a headteacher by the Secretary of State, following the recommendations of a professional conduct panel. The case implicates considerations of procedural fairness, assessment of evidence, credibility of witnesses, and the application of sanctions within the teaching profession.

Key Facts

Mahzia ‘Pepe’ Hart, formerly the headteacher at the Academy of Trinity Church of England Voluntary Controlled Primary School, was subjected to a prohibition order which precluded her from teaching. This order came after allegations of bullying, particularly towards pregnant teachers, making inappropriate comments, and intimidation over several years were made against her and subsequently found proved by a panel, notwithstanding the withdrawal or dismissal of some allegations.

An appeal was lodged on the basis of procedural unfairness, erroneous assessment of evidence, and the imposition of an excessive sanction. The High Court addresses the appeal through a review as opposed to a rehearing, taking into account the specialized nature of the panel with teacher members and the appropriateness of its judgment in the educational context.

The legal principles central to the case involve:

  1. Procedural Fairness: The court considered whether procedural fairness was compromised by proceeding to a final hearing before the outcome of a High Court action for an alleged conspiracy to injure Hart, and her claim that the Panel’s refusal to release audio recordings of the proceedings impaired the preparation of her defence.

  2. Assessment of Evidence: The court evaluated whether the Panel’s findings of fact were against the weight of evidence, especially concerning the credibility and reliability of witnesses and whether there was a conspiracy against Hart.

  3. Sanctions and Proportionality: The appropriateness of the sanction imposed, in this case, a prohibition order, was scrutinized. The court considered whether the order was necessary and proportionate, guided by the principles in Bank Mellat and the test laid down in Bawa-Garba, Sastry, and Ullmer, focusing on the severity of misconduct and the public interest in upholding professional standards.

  4. Remorse and Insight: The significance the Panel placed on Hart’s lack of remorse and insight was examined and whether it was fair to hold these factors against her while she was litigating related issues in High Court action.


The High Court dismissed the appeal on all grounds, finding no procedural unfairness in the Panel’s decisions, affirming the credibility it attached to the witnesses’ evidence, and upholding the proportionality of the prohibition order against Hart. The Panel had exercised caution before making adverse findings and had justly assessed the gravity of Hart’s actions, which was deemed beyond mere employment grievances. The Panel’s concern with upholding high professional standards and the risk of recurrence of Hart’s behavior justified the prohibition order, despite Hart’s previous exemplary contributions to education.


The High Court’s decision in Mahzia ‘Pepe’ Hart v Secretary of State for Education & Anor emphasizes the discretionary evaluative ability of professional conduct panels, especially when the panels comprise members with relevant professional experience. The court’s deference to the Panel’s role in interpreting evidence and determining appropriate sanctions within the context of the teaching profession undergirds the judgment. Furthermore, the court’s articulation of principles around procedural fairness and the significance of remorse and insight in disciplinary matters provides valuable guidance for the teaching profession and its regulatory framework.

Related Summaries