The claimant was a teaching assistant. A complaint had been made that he had kissed a boy having work experience at the school, but it had been decided that no criminal prosecution would follow. He sought judicial review of the school’s decision to take disciplinary proceedings without allowing him legal representation. The school now appealed against the grant of a review.
Held: The authority’s appeal failed. The result of a finding against the teaching assistant would prevent him working in education. The court doubted, but left open, the power of a local authority to prevent a teacher bringing with him legal assistance. ‘[W]here an individual is subject to two or more sets of proceedings (or two or more phases of a single proceeding), and a ‘civil right or obligation’ enjoyed or owed by him will be determined in one of them, he may (not necessarily will) by force of Article 6 enjoy appropriate procedural rights in relation to any of the others if the outcome of that other will have a substantial influence or effect on the determination of the civil right or obligation. ‘
Article 6 even in its ‘civil’ context, required that the claimant in this context should be afforded the opportunity to arrange for legal representation in those proceedings should he so choose.
Laws LJ, Wilson LJ, Goldring LJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 1, [2010] WLR (D) 4, Times 23-Feb-2010, [2010] ELR 235, [2010] UKHRR 584, [2010] HRLR 13, [2010] Med LR 45, [2010] WLR 2218, [2010] BLGR 207, [2010] 2 All ER 555, [2010] IRLR 222, [2010] 1 WLR 2218
Bailii, WLRD
Sexual Offences Act 2003 16, European Convention on Human Rights 6, Education (Prohibition from Teaching and Working with Children) Regulations 2003 4, Education Act 2002 142
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – FH v Secretary of State for Education CST 7-Feb-2006
The tribunal was not to determine, or re-determine, matters of primary fact. . .
Cited – Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v JN Admn 9-May-2008
. .
Cited – Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families v Philliskirk Admn 31-Oct-2008
Collins J considered the ability of the Care Standards Tribunal to determine issues of primary fact: ‘Of course, it is right that the Tribunal is reviewing the Secretary of State’s decision, and clearly if it was not a reasonable decision, then the . .
Cited – Ringeisen v Austria ECHR 16-Jul-1971
The Austrian District and Regional Real Property Transactions Commission refused to approve the sale of a number of plots of land. The applicant challenged the refusal alleging bias and contending that his article 6 rights were violated for that . .
Cited – Albert And Le Compte v Belgium (Article 50) ECHR 24-Oct-1983
The applicants were Belgian nationals and medical practitioners. Dr Le Compte was suspended from practising medicine for two years for an offence against professional discipline. He appealed to the Appeals Council, alleging violations of Article 6. . .
Cited – Kulkarni v Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust and Others CA 23-Jul-2009
The doctor claimant sought to assert a right to have legal representation in disciplinary proceedings by his employer.
Held: The doctor’s contract entitled him to representation. Also, the claimant’s Article 6 rights to a fair trial and to . .
Cited – Wright and Others, Regina (on the Application of) v Secretary of State for Health and Another HL 21-Jan-2009
The claimants had been provisionally listed as ‘people considered unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults’ which meant that they could no longer work, but they said they were given no effective and speedy opportunity to object to the listing. . .
Cited – Lizzarraga v Spain ECHR 2007
The court emphasised the importance of a pragmatic connection between different aspects of a multiple process for the purpose of ascertaining whether Article 6 rights attach to any particular aspect. . .
Cited – Ruiz-Mateos v Spain ECHR 23-Jun-1993
There had been a court action for the restitution of company shares expropriated by government. An issue as to the constitutionality of a legislative act (Act 7/1983), which was relied on by the government in the expropriation proceedings, was . .
Cited – Bryan v The United Kingdom ECHR 22-Nov-1995
Bryan was a farmer at Warrington in Cheshire. He built two brick buildings on land in a conservation area without planning permission and the planning authority served an enforcement notice for their demolition. He appealed on grounds (a) (that . .
Cited – Fleurose v The Securities and Futures Authority Ltd, The Disciplinary Appeal Tribunal of the Securities & Futures Authority Ltd CA 21-Dec-2001
The applicant sought to challenge a decision suspending him from authorisation to act as a financial adviser. He was alleged to have sought to affect the Index of share values in order that his company should not be liable under certain options. He . .
Cited – Regina (Holding and Barnes plc) v Secretary of State for Environment Transport and the Regions; Regina (Alconbury Developments Ltd and Others) v Same and Others HL 9-May-2001
Power to call in is administrative in nature
The powers of the Secretary of State to call in a planning application for his decision, and certain other planning powers, were essentially an administrative power, and not a judicial one, and therefore it was not a breach of the applicants’ rights . .
Cited – Runa Begum v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (First Secretary of State intervening) HL 13-Feb-2003
The appellant challenged the procedure for reviewing a decision made as to the suitability of accomodation offered to her after the respondent had accepted her as being homeless. The procedure involved a review by an officer of the council, with an . .
Cited – Tsfayo v The United Kingdom ECHR 14-Nov-2006
The applicant challenged the prodecures for deciding her appeal against the council’s refusal to pay backdated housing benefits. She complained that the availability of judicial review of the decision was not adequate.
Held: The system did not . .
Cited by:
Cited – Botham v The Ministry of Defence QBD 26-Mar-2010
botham_modQBD10
The claimant had been employed by the MOD. He was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct, and he was then placed on the list of persons unsuitable for work with children. He succeeded at the Tribunal in a claim for unfair and wrongful dismissal. . .
Cited – G, Regina (on The Application of) v X School SC 29-Jun-2011
The claimant was employed as a teaching assistant. He was suspended after allegations of sexual misbehaviour with boy at the school. He refused to take part in the disciplinary proceedings until the police investigation was concluded. A decision was . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Education, Employment, Human Rights
Updated: 31 October 2021; Ref: scu.393016