The interpretation of teaching regulation legislation

Leon Glenister reports on a successful defence to a judicial review challenging the established interpretation of teaching regulation legislation.

The High Court has dismissed a challenge alleging that the Secretary of State for Education misinterpreted her jurisdiction to investigate teacher misconduct by failing to distinguish between conduct that was connected to the teaching profession and that which is outside it (R (Aquilina) v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1998 (Admin).

Section 141B of the Education Act 2002 provides that the Secretary of State may investigate a case where, amongst other things, the teacher may be “guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute”. In such an instance, the legislation provides for a professional conduct panel (“PCP”) to be appointed and to make a recommendation on whether a prohibition order should be made.

The Claimant headteacher had been found to have shared confidential information with her husband, who was not an employee of the school but who had a pastoral role at the school. In the circumstances the PCP found that this was not unacceptable professional conduct under the relevant guidance which was “misconduct of a serious nature, falling significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher”. However, given the nature of the misconduct concerning confidential information, it was “conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute”.

The Claimant argued that, as a matter of statutory construction, the first limb of “unacceptable professional conduct” related solely to conduct connected to the teaching profession; and “conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute” related solely to conduct not connected to the teaching profession.

The Court accepted the submissions of the Secretary of State in finding against this interpretation. It found the Claimant’s interpretation was not the “natural reading of the section” and the Claimant sought to “over-judicialise and over-define broad definitions”.

The Court also rejected the Claimant’s argument that a threshold of “serious” should be read into the limb of “conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute”. It was found this did not arise from the statutory language which placed the threshold of bringing the profession into disrepute.

Leon Glenister is a barrister at Landmark Chambers. He represented the Secretary of State, instructed by James Warnock and Michelle Zindi of the Government Legal Department.