Welcome back to Legal Jukebox Friday! This week, we’re tuning into a crucial High Court judgment concerning freedom of religious expression within the realms of professional misconduct proceedings. Whether you’re a solicitor specialising in regulatory law, a member of a professional conduct panel, or an educator navigating tricky ethical waters, this case is one you’ll want to listen up to. So, grab a brew and let’s dive into R (Leger v Secretary of State for Education) [2025] EWHC 665 (Admin).
The Case in Question: Leger v Secretary of State for Education [2025]
This case features Ms Leger, a teacher described as a “born-again ‘conservative’ Roman Catholic Christian” at Bishop Justus Church of England School. Ms Leger’s views on LGBTQ+ relationships and abortion clashed with elements of the school’s curriculum, leading to allegations of professional misconduct.
The Heart of the Matter: Allegations and Investigation
The crux of the issue centred on claims of inappropriate comments made by Ms Leger during lessons. A pupil raised concerns about potential transphobia, triggering disciplinary proceedings and referral to the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA).
The Professional Conduct Panel’s Verdict
A Professional Conduct Panel (PCP) scrutinised the allegations, ultimately finding:
- Several factual allegations were proven.
- Ms Leger’s conduct constituted unacceptable professional conduct.
- The conduct did not bring the profession into disrepute.
- No prohibition order was recommended – a key point for any teacher facing regulatory action.
Judicial Review: Seven Hurdles
Ms Leger sought a judicial review, challenging the findings on seven grounds, each tackled by Mrs Justice Lang:
- Context Consideration: The court found no error, confirming the panel had properly considered the context of Ms Leger’s comments.
- Procedural Fairness: The court ruled that the panel’s reliance on certain matters wasn’t procedurally unfair. A win for the regulatory process.
- Curriculum Duty: The court clarified that while schools have a duty to provide a balanced curriculum, teachers are responsible for delivering it. A vital distinction for those in education law.
- Convention Rights (Article 9 & 10 ECHR): The court found the panel correctly applied the law regarding freedom of thought, conscience and religion and freedom of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. This is a key area for human rights lawyers.
- Publication of Decision: The court deemed the publication of findings a justifiable and proportionate sanction. Important for understanding data protection and privacy rights in professional contexts.
Why This Case Resonates
This case serves as a vital precedent for regulatory bodies, education professionals, and employment lawyers navigating the tricky terrain where personal beliefs intersect with professional duties. Here’s why:
- Balancing Rights: It highlights the challenges of balancing a teacher’s right to religious expression with the need to provide a balanced and inclusive education.
- Professional Standards: It reinforces the importance of upholding professional standards, even when personal beliefs may conflict.
- Proportionality: It underscores the need for proportionate sanctions in professional misconduct cases.
- Impact of ECHR: It demonstrates how the European Convention on Human Rights is applied in a professional regulatory context, a must-know for any public law solicitor.
For anyone dealing with fitness to practise cases, teacher misconduct, or religious discrimination in the workplace, this judgment provides valuable guidance.
Need Expert Advice?
If you’re facing a regulatory investigation, require assistance with employment law matters, or need representation before a professional conduct panel, remember to seek expert legal advice. Give Regulation Resolution Solicitors a bell.
That’s all for this week’s Legal Jukebox! Keep your ears open for more crucial case law coming your way soon.