L v Teaching Council (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

The Applicant, a principal of a primary school, challenged decisions of the disciplinary panel of the Respondent, the Teaching Council, which found him guilty of poor professional performance. The finding related to a 19-week delay in informing the parents of a nine-year-old pre-verbal child with autism about an allegation of inappropriate behaviour made by a special needs assistant (SNA) against the child's teacher. The Applicant also challenged the sanction imposed—admonishment—which was the second lowest available sanction. The disciplinary panel conducted an inquiry and hearing, ultimately concluding the Applicant had failed to meet the expected standards of competence by not timely informing the parents of the allegation. The Applicant initiated judicial review proceedings challenging the decisions on various technical grounds. The court heard submissions and evidence, including affidavits concerning the expertise of the disciplinary panel members, and reviewed the relevant statutory framework and case law before delivering judgment.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the disciplinary panel was properly constituted, specifically whether the absence of a primary school principal on the panel or the failure to call expert evidence rendered the decision unlawful.
2. Whether the disciplinary panel failed to consider relevant child protection procedures (2017 guidelines) and confidentiality obligations.
3. Whether the disciplinary panel gave adequate reasons for its decisions.
4. Whether delay in the disciplinary process or in informing the parents constituted grounds for challenge.
5. Whether objective bias arose from the presence of a Teaching Council member sitting beside the child's mother during hearings.
6. Whether the disciplinary panel reversed the burden of proof in its findings.
7. Whether the panel erred by failing to consider the once-off nature of the conduct in assessing poor professional performance.
8. Whether the sanction imposed was irrational or inconsistent with the findings.

Arguments of the Parties

Applicant's Arguments

• The disciplinary panel lacked necessary expertise due to no primary school principal being a member.
• No expert evidence was called to support the finding of poor professional performance.
• The disciplinary panel failed to consider the confidentiality obligations under the 2017 child protection procedures and the circular 0049/2018.
• The reasons given by the disciplinary panel were inadequate.
• The delay in informing the parents and in the disciplinary process was excessive and unfair.
• There was objective bias because a Teaching Council member sat beside the child's mother during the hearings.
• The disciplinary panel reversed the burden of proof by requiring the Applicant to justify his delay in informing the parents.
• The panel failed to properly consider mitigating factors such as the once-off nature of the conduct and the Applicant's unblemished record.
• The sanction of admonishment was disproportionate given the findings.
• The Applicant contended that he acted in accordance with circular 0049/2018, which mandated confidentiality during disciplinary investigations, preventing him from informing the parents earlier.

Respondent's Arguments

• The disciplinary panel had adequate expertise based on the qualifications and experience of its members.
• The nature of the issues did not require expert evidence as they involved matters within the panel’s knowledge.
• The 2017 procedures were not pleaded grounds of defence and were not part of the case before the panel.
• The reasons given by the disciplinary panel were sufficient, clear, and cogent.
• The Applicant did not raise delay as a ground before the disciplinary panel and cannot rely on it now.
• The presence of a Teaching Council member in the public gallery did not create objective bias as that person was not involved in the disciplinary process.
• The burden of proof remained on the Director of the Teaching Council, and the panel did not reverse it.
• The panel properly balanced aggravating and mitigating factors, including the once-off nature of the conduct.
• The sanction was appropriate considering the seriousness of the findings and mitigating circumstances.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court emphasized that these proceedings were judicial review, focusing on lawfulness and procedural fairness rather than merits or correctness of the disciplinary panel’s decisions. The court found that the disciplinary panel was properly constituted with members possessing sufficient expertise, including experience in primary and post-primary education, and that expert evidence was not necessary given the nature of the issues. The panel’s failure to reference the 2017 child protection procedures was not a procedural defect as those were not part of the Applicant’s pleaded case or defence.

The court held that the disciplinary panel provided adequate, clear, and cogent reasons for its findings, including rejecting the Applicant’s explanation for delayed notification of the parents. The delay ground was dismissed because the Applicant did not raise it before the disciplinary panel and acquiesced in the process. The court rejected the claim of objective bias, noting the uninvolved status of the council member sitting beside the mother and the experienced, impartial conduct of the panel.

Regarding the burden of proof, the court found no reversal occurred; the panel correctly applied the criminal standard of proof resting on the Director. The panel’s consideration of the once-off nature of the conduct was consistent with established case law, which requires seriousness but does not impose a higher threshold for isolated incidents. The sanction of admonishment was rationally determined after weighing aggravating and mitigating factors, including the Applicant's distinguished career and lack of previous findings against him.

Holding and Implications

The court REFUSED ALL RELIEFS sought by the Applicant in the judicial review proceedings, thereby upholding the disciplinary panel’s findings of poor professional performance and the sanction of admonishment.

This decision confirms that disciplinary panels may properly find poor professional performance based on a serious once-off failure, even without expert evidence, provided the panel has adequate expertise and gives sufficient reasons. It underscores the procedural limits of judicial review in such contexts, emphasizing lawfulness and procedural fairness over merits. The ruling maintains the status quo without establishing new precedent, directly affecting only the parties by affirming the disciplinary outcome against the Applicant.