Brown v Secretary of State for Education QBD (Admin) (Collins J) 19.02.2015
A prohibition order which could not be reviewed for at least five years was an appropriate sanction in a case of a teacher who had had an inappropriate relationship with a year 12 pupil and, after being suspended, had continued to contact the pupil.
The teacher had also behaved dishonestly in relation to his new employer and his approach to the appeal indicated that he had no insight.
The decision to make the order was correct and the minimum review period set was not wrong.
Chigoya v Health and Care Professions Council QBD(Admin) (Elisabeth Laing J) 12.03.2015
The Investigating Committee of the Health and Care Professions Council had been right to impose an interim suspension order of 18 months on a social worker charged with possession of indecent images of children and extreme pornographic images.
C appealed on the basis that the Committee had not given any reasons for dismissing statements he and his wife had given which stated that the allegations were not credible. C said that the Committee had wrongly focused on the public interest point and should have waited until criminal charges against him had been determined.
The appeal was rejected. The role of the Committee was to decide whether to make an order in the public interest. It was not required to give lengthy reasons and it had briefly referred to C's evidence. It was right for the Committee to take a cautious approach as the allegations against C may be true.
At the time of writing, full judgments of the above cases were not available.