A teacher who had not committed unacceptable professional misconduct still brought profession into disrepute.
This case involved Mrs Aquilina, a headteacher, who was dismissed for misconduct which involved sharing confidential information regarding pupils with her husband, Canon Aquilina, who was not an employee of the school. During the proceedings, it was noted that one-third of the 61 emails shared with Canon Aquilina pertained to a sensitive matter involving peer-on-peer abuse, in which he provided support to the affected pupil and parents.
The case was referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency which appointed a Professional Conduct Panel (“PCP”) to hear the case. The PCP found that while Mrs Aquilina had committed some misconduct, she was not guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The PCP concluded that her actions did not significantly breach the Teachers’ Standards but they acknowledged that her conduct could potentially undermine public trust in the teaching profession and bring it into disrepute. The PCP recommended that a prohibition order against Mrs Aquilina would not be proportionate or in the public interest as Mrs Aquilina’s behaviour was “at the less serious end of the possible spectrum”, which the Secretary of State accepted.
Mrs Aquilina was unhappy with the finding that her conduct might bring the profession into disrepute. She considered the finding that her actions did not constitute unacceptable professional conduct meant that they could not warrant the separate finding of bringing the profession into disrepute. She felt the two findings were logically inconsistent and advanced several very technical arguments based on her interpretation of the wording of section 141B(1) of the Education Act 2002.
The High Court disagreed. The PCP had approached its findings in a perfectly rational way. Just because the PCP felt there was a lower level of culpability, this did not mean there was not greater damage to the public perception of the profession. Regarding the interpretation of the legislation, Parliament had deliberately created broad categories which would allow the PCP to apply its specialist experience and judgment to the individual situation.
Important lessons to take away
There are some important lessons for schools here. Firstly, the vital importance of keeping secure confidential information and not breaching data protection principles is emphasised in the judgment. It is critical that schools have regular data protection training to ensure that all staff understand the stringent rules on not sharing data outside of the school body. Secondly, there are some helpful lessons on how the TRA considers and evaluates misconduct. The level of professional culpability will be important in reaching an assessment but so will be the impact on the public’s perception of the teaching profession (even where the professional culpability is less serious).
