Hello everyone, Collette here and welcome back to our case of the week. This week, we take a look at the case of Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education involving a Christian teacher known for preaching his religious views publicly and online that led to his dismissal. Last week, we had the case of Kikwera-Akaka v Salvation Army Trading Company Ltd which looked at fairness of dismissals for capability and the importance of following proper procedures. For those that missed it you can find it here.

Background:

The appellant, a teacher and evangelical Christian, was known for preaching his religious views both publicly and online. His faith-based beliefs on issues such as gender identity, homosexuality, marriage, and the roles of men and women played a significant role in the events that led to his dismissal from his teaching role and, ultimately, a prohibition order barring him from the teaching profession.

The case centred around the appellant’s refusal to use the preferred male pronouns of Pupil A, who was registered female at birth but identified as male by the time he joined the appellant’s school. Pupil A, who presented as male with short hair and other masculine features, had expressly requested that the school community refer to him using male pronouns. The school agreed to this request, in line with its obligations to respect the gender identity of students.

Despite the school’s decision, the appellant refused to adhere to Pupil A’s pronoun preferences on multiple occasions. Complaints about the teacher’s behaviour soon arose, not only in relation to the pronoun issue but also regarding his broader conduct. The teacher had shared his views on homosexuality in class, stating that he opposed gay marriage and recounting the story of an individual who, through God, had “stopped being gay” because homosexuality was “wrong.” These statements, made during maths lessons, caused significant concern about the impact on both Pupil A and other vulnerable students in his class, including those identifying as gay or lesbian.

Further complaints were made after the teacher appeared on a national television programme, where he used female pronouns multiple times when referring to Pupil A. He also failed to use Pupil A’s preferred pronouns in email correspondence with the school. His conduct was eventually investigated by a professional conduct panel, which found that the teacher’s actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and could bring the teaching profession into disrepute.

Professional Conduct Panel Findings:

The panel made several findings of fact, including that:

  1. The teacher had failed to use Pupil A’s preferred male pronouns on one or more occasions while teaching.
  2. He had used female pronouns multiple times during his television appearance, where it was apparent to the school community, including Pupil A, that he was referring to Pupil A.
  3. In an email to the school, he again failed to use Pupil A’s preferred pronouns.
  4. During a maths lesson, he expressed his opposition to gay marriage.
  5. In another lesson, he shared a religious story suggesting that homosexuality could be “cured” through God.

The panel concluded that in failing to use Pupil A’s preferred pronouns both in the classroom and in public, the teacher had failed to treat Pupil A with dignity and respect, thereby breaching his professional duty to safeguard Pupil A’s wellbeing. The panel emphasised that it was the teacher’s responsibility to raise any personal convictions that might conflict with his professional duties with the school at the earliest opportunity to agree on a proper approach that would protect Pupil A’s welfare. His failure to do so, coupled with his public comments, had a detrimental effect on Pupil A and other vulnerable students.

As a result, the panel recommended that a prohibition order be imposed under regulation 3 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, barring the teacher from “teaching work.” The panel also allowed for the possibility of reviewing the order after a minimum period of two years. The Secretary of State accepted the panel’s recommendation, prompting the teacher to appeal against the prohibition order and seek an extension of time for bringing his appeal.

Grounds of Appeal:

The teacher’s grounds of appeal included the following:

  1. He challenged the panel’s finding that it was in Pupil A’s best interests to be considered a transgender male and to be referred to by his preferred pronouns.
  2. He argued that the panel’s conclusion that he had failed to treat Pupil A with dignity and respect, and that he had failed to safeguard Pupil A’s wellbeing by not using his preferred pronouns, was unreasonable.
  3. He contended that the panel had incorrectly placed the onus on him to raise his concerns regarding Pupil A with the school.
  4. He claimed the panel had erred in deciding that a prohibition order was justified and that it had not provided sufficient reasoning for the decision.
  5. He argued that the decision to impose a prohibition order was irrational, unnecessary, and disproportionate.

High Court Decision Key Findings:

The High Court heard the appeal and extended the time for bringing the appeal but ultimately dismissed it.

Responsibility for Decision on Pronouns:

The court made it clear that it was the school, not the teacher, which held the responsibility for determining how to address Pupil A’s request to be treated as a transgender male and to use male pronouns. The teacher’s personal disagreement with the school’s decision should have been raised privately and discreetly with the headteacher. His failure to comply with the school’s decision did not justify his conduct, nor did it excuse his failure to treat Pupil A with dignity and respect. The court pointed to evidence that the teacher’s actions had a significant negative impact on Pupil A’s health, wellbeing, and safety.

No Error in Panel’s Findings:

 

The court found no basis for overturning the panel’s primary findings of fact, which were supported by witness testimony and the transcript of the teacher’s appearance on the television programme. The panel was correct in concluding that the teacher’s conduct was deliberate and that by refusing to use Pupil A’s preferred pronouns, he had failed to safeguard Pupil A’s welfare. The court emphasised that it should not lightly interfere with the panel’s judgment on professional standards, given the panel’s specialist role in such matters.

 

Teacher’s Professional Duties:

 

The court reiterated that the teacher was bound by the Teachers’ Standards, which required him to treat all pupils, including Pupil A, with dignity and respect and to ensure their wellbeing. His refusal to use Pupil A’s preferred pronouns and his public outing of Pupil A on national television amounted to a serious breach of these duties.  

 

Prohibition Order:

 

The court found no error in the panel and Secretary of State’s decision to impose a prohibition order. While such an order, especially with the possibility of review after two years, was a severe sanction, the court was satisfied that it was justified in the circumstances. The teacher’s actions, particularly his deliberate public outing of Pupil A, caused significant distress and harm to a vulnerable pupil. Additionally, his comments in class regarding homosexuality were likely to have had a deeply negative impact on gay and lesbian students.

  

The court also noted that the teacher’s continued lack of insight and remorse further justified the prohibition order. The panel had been right to conclude that the teacher was at risk of repeating his conduct in similar circumstances, given his failure to recognise the harm he caused.

Takeaway Points

The High Court’s decision to dismiss the teacher’s appeal and uphold the prohibition order features the complex balance between a teacher’s personal beliefs and their professional obligations. This case highlights the tension between a teacher’s right to hold and express religious beliefs, which is itself a protected characteristic under the Equality Act, and the duty to respect the dignity and welfare of pupils, particularly vulnerable ones. The court’s judgment makes clear that while teachers are entitled to their beliefs, these must be set aside when they conflict with the requirement to treat pupils with dignity and respect, safeguarding their wellbeing. The case illustrates the challenging line educators must walk in balancing their own protected characteristics with their professional responsibilities to protect the rights and dignity of children in their care.’