Teaching Council v Clancy (Approved)

Factual and Procedural Background

This summary concerns an application by Company A under section 44(5) of the Teaching Council Act 2001 (as amended) to confirm a Panel decision of Company A's Disciplinary Committee removing the Respondent from the register and prohibiting the Respondent from applying for restoration under s.31 for 10 years. The grounding affidavit was sworn by Attorney O'Leary, Head of the Disciplinary Committee Unit of Company A.

The Respondent held a conditional teacher registration valid until April 2026, lacking a Teacher Education Qualification (TEQ). Company B (the Chief Executive) lodged a complaint in March 2024 under s.42 alleging that the Respondent made false representations concerning qualifications, registration status and employment history in 25 applications (23 teaching, 2 non-teaching) to Company B in 2023. The Investigating Committee found a prima facie case on 9 December 2024 and referred the matter to the Disciplinary Committee.

A Notice of Inquiry dated 26 November 2025 alleged multiple false statements by the Respondent (including misrepresentations about recognised teaching qualifications, full registration, subject registrations, a Masters qualification from The University, and prior employment). The Panel refused the Respondent's application for a private hearing and proceeded in public. The Respondent did not attend and was unrepresented. Evidence was heard, a Report issued on 23 February 2026 finding the allegations proven beyond reasonable doubt, and findings of professional misconduct and breaches of the Code of Professional Conduct for Teachers were made.

The Panel reconvened on 13 March 2026 to determine sanction. It removed the Respondent from the register under s.44(1)(a) and prohibited reapplication for restoration for 10 years. Company A applied to the High Court under s.44(5) for confirmation of the Panel's decision after the Respondent did not seek annulment within the statutory 21-day period.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the High Court should confirm the Panel's decision under s.44(5) of the Teaching Council Act 2001, having regard to whether there exists "good reason" not to confirm (for example, procedural impropriety, breach of natural or constitutional justice, a serious error of fact or law, or a decision no reasonable regulatory body could reach on the evidence).
2. Whether the sanction imposed (removal from the register with a 10-year bar on restoration) was appropriate and proportionate in light of the Panel's findings and relevant guidance.
3. Whether Company A should be given liberty to communicate the terms of the High Court order to the equivalent regulatory bodies in the other UK jurisdictions.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court identified the statutory test in s.44(5): the Court must confirm the Panel's decision unless it sees "good reason" not to do so. The Court explained the circumstances that would amount to "good reason" — procedural impropriety or irregularity, failure to observe natural or constitutional justice, a serious and significant error of fact or law, or a decision that no reasonable regulatory body could take on the evidence. The Court reviewed the relevant authorities and adopted the established test.

The Court considered the procedural history and the Panel's conduct: the Notice of Inquiry, the Panel's refusal of a private hearing application with reasons, the Panel's decision to proceed in the Respondent's absence after obtaining advice from the legal assessor (Attorney McGarry), the evidence heard, and the Report's findings that the allegations were proven beyond reasonable doubt. The Court noted the Respondent had acknowledged untruthfulness in prior correspondence and had not sought annulment within the statutory period.

The Court examined the Panel's sanction analysis: manifest dishonesty, multiple false applications, risk of potential harm to students and the public, absence of mitigating factors or demonstrated insight, presence of aggravating features (seriousness, pattern, deliberate conduct), consideration of proportionality and available sanctions (censure, conditions, suspension, cancellation), and reliance on the Teaching Council Sanction Guidance Document (September 2021). The Panel concluded cancellation with a 10-year bar best protected the public and struck the appropriate balance. The Court found no procedural impropriety, no breach of natural or constitutional justice, no serious error of fact or law, and that the decision was within the range of reasonable regulatory responses on the evidence.

Holding and Implications

CONFIRMED: The High Court confirmed the Panel's decision to remove the Respondent from the register and to prohibit the Respondent from applying for restoration to the register for a period of 10 years from the date of removal.

Implications:

• Company A is granted liberty to communicate the terms of the order to Company C, Company D, Company E and Company F where there is no automatic notification under the IMI system.
• No order as to costs was made (Company A did not seek costs).
• The decision directly effects the Respondent by removal and a 10-year bar on restoration; the Court noted no broader precedent was created beyond applying the established "good reason" test and confirming the Panel's sanction decision on the facts presented.