XYZ v DBS
[2024] UKUT 85 (AAC)
A Teacher v Disclosure and Barring Service & Anor
1 February 2023
[2023] UKUT 39 (AAC)
Upper Tribunal
A teacher's name was going to be published, even though a court order tried to keep her name secret. The court decided it couldn't stop the publishing as long as no one could figure out who she was from what was being released. If the teacher wanted to stop it, she would have to go to a different, higher court.
Key Facts
- •A teacher (Appellant) received a caution for an offense involving a minor pupil.
- •Her name was added to the adults' and children's barred lists by the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS).
- •The Upper Tribunal (UT) remitted the DBS decision back to the DBS due to errors of law.
- •The UT issued a Rule 14 order prohibiting disclosure or publication of information identifying the appellant, her children, or the pupil.
- •The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found the appellant guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and imposed a prohibition order.
- •The Secretary of State is required to publish such prohibition orders.
- •The TRA sought confirmation that its proposed publication wouldn't breach the Rule 14 order.
- •The appellant expressed concerns about the risk to her children's safety and mental health if the decision was published without significant redactions.
Legal Principles
Rule 14 of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 allows the UT to make orders prohibiting disclosure or publication of information to protect the identity of individuals.
Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008, Rule 14
The UT's jurisdiction is limited to matters conferred by statute; it does not extend to decisions by the Secretary of State regarding teacher prohibition orders.
Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007
Statutory requirements for publication (e.g., Education Act 2002, s.141C; Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, reg. 8(5)) may not be overridden by a Rule 14 order unless doing so is unavoidable.
Education Act 2002, s.141C; Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, reg. 8(5)
The scope of a Rule 14 order is generally limited to the UT's own proceedings.
Case law analysis of Salih v Pensions Regulator [2018] UKUT 338 (TCC), Arch Financial Products LLP v Financial Services Authority (FS/2012/20), Pierhead Drinks Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKUT 7 (TCC)
Outcomes
Publication of the Secretary of State's decision (Summary Decision), even with the appellant's name included, would not breach the Rule 14 order if the redactions prevent jigsaw identification.
The UT's jurisdiction does not extend to the Secretary of State's decision, and the Summary Decision contains no information that would allow identification of those protected by the Rule 14 order.
The UT has no jurisdiction to prevent the Secretary of State from publishing the decision.
This is a matter for judicial review in the High Court, not the UT.
Applications for copies of the UT decision must be referred to a judge for directions.
To manage access to information and protect anonymity.