Anwar v National College for Teaching & Leadership & Anor

Factual and Procedural Background

On 9 February 2016, a professional conduct panel ("the Panel") of the National College for Teaching and Leadership ("the NCTL") determined, following a joint disciplinary hearing, that the Appellants had each been guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and had brought the teaching profession into disrepute. The Panel found that each Appellant had, on or before 31 March 2014, agreed with others to the inclusion of an undue amount of religious influence in the education of pupils at a state-funded secondary school ("the School") and, in the case of one Appellant, also at a primary school of which he was a governor.

The Panel recommended that each Appellant be prohibited from teaching in England indefinitely, subject to the right to apply for a review of that prohibition after a specified period. The Secretary of State for Education accepted the recommendation and made Prohibition Orders effective 18 February 2016.

The Appellants appealed pursuant to Regulation 17 of the Teachers' Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, naming both the NCTL and the Secretary of State as respondents, who were treated as a single party ("the Respondent"). The appeal was by way of re-hearing, with the Court tasked to determine whether the original decision was wrong or unjust due to serious procedural or other irregularity.

The background includes the history of the School, located in an area with a predominantly Muslim population, which had undergone significant improvement from a failing status in 1996 to "Outstanding" by 2012, before being downgraded to "Inadequate" in 2014 following an OFSTED inspection. Concerns arose from a letter alleging a strategy to introduce strict Islamic principles into schools, leading to investigations including the Panel's disciplinary proceedings.

Charges against the Appellants related to alleged agreements to include undue religious influence in education through various means such as curriculum reform, staff appointments, assemblies, encouragement of prayer, and gender separation. The Panel conducted hearings in October 2015 and January 2016, issuing decisions in February 2016.

The disciplinary proceedings against senior leadership team ("SLT") members and other teachers were conducted separately and concurrently, with the SLT hearing ongoing at the time of the Panel's decision on the Appellants.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether there was serious procedural impropriety in the Panel's fact-finding process, particularly regarding disclosure of material from concurrent proceedings.
2. Whether the Panel's findings were perverse or took into account irrelevant or improper considerations.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellants' Arguments

• There was serious procedural impropriety due to failure to provide proper disclosure of material from the SLT proceedings, which were related and ongoing.
• The Panel proceeded against the Appellants before and separately from the SLT, which was unfair given the centrality of the SLT's role to the allegations.
• The findings were perverse and based on improper considerations, including taking into account evidence without proper disclosure.
• The penalty imposed was disproportionate (noted but not detailed in the opinion).

Respondent's Arguments

• The decision to have separate hearings for the SLT and the Appellants was a matter of judgment and not challengeable.
• The order of hearings was irrelevant as there is no mechanism to incorporate findings from one panel into another.
• The Appellants had the opportunity to call any evidence, including expert evidence, and were not prevented from defending themselves.
• The disclosure obligations were limited; witness statements of the SLT were mere denials and expert reports did not go to the crucial issues in the Appellants' cases.
• The email evidence submitted was contradicted by credible witness testimony accepted by the Panel.
• The Appellants themselves had objected to their cases being joined with others, which was overruled by the Panel.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court accepted that while it was permissible for the NCTL to conduct separate disciplinary proceedings against different groups of teachers involved in an alleged overarching agreement, proceeding first against the Appellants before the SLT raised serious concerns about fairness and the risk of inconsistent findings.

The key issue was the failure by the NCTL to disclose relevant material from the SLT proceedings to the Appellants, including witness statements, expert reports, and documentary evidence such as emails, which were highly relevant to the Appellants' defense and the Panel's consideration. The Court found that the witness statements were not mere denials but contained important contextual and substantive information that should have been disclosed.

The Court rejected the Respondent's narrow approach to disclosure obligations, emphasizing that the Appellants were entitled to disclosure of material that could assist their case or undermine the NCTL's case. The non-disclosure constituted a serious procedural irregularity rendering the proceedings unjust.

Given this conclusion, the Court found it unnecessary to consider the second ground of appeal regarding the alleged perversity of the findings or improper considerations, as the case would likely require a new hearing.

Holding and Implications

The Court ALLOWED the appeals brought by the Appellants and set aside the Prohibition Orders made against them.

The direct effect is that the Appellants are no longer prohibited from teaching pursuant to the challenged orders. The Court indicated that if the NCTL seeks a new hearing, further arguments will be heard on that and any consequential matters.

No new legal precedent was established beyond the application of established principles regarding procedural fairness and disclosure obligations in disciplinary proceedings.