Spilling school secrets not trivial

In R (Claudia Aquilina) v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1998 (Admin), headteacher Claudia Aquilina had sent emails to her husband, Canon Aquilina, about a pupil’s involvement with social services, revealing personal contact details and addresses, with photographs of pupils and achievement details. A Family Court order was attached to one email from a firm of solicitors, which stated it was confidential.

Aquilina was dismissed, but argued she had been seeking pastoral support and guidance from her husband, who was supporting the role of chaplaincy at the school as the parish priest was nearing retirement.

A professional conduct panel, appointed by the Teaching Regulation Agency, found Aquilina not guilty of ‘unacceptable professional conduct’. However, it did find her actions amounted to ‘conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute’.

Aquilina argued these were two separate categories that could not overlap. Moreover, the panel’s first finding suggested her misconduct was not serious, which contradicted its second finding. Therefore, the decision was irrational and unlawful as s 141B(1) of the Education Act 2002 was wrongly interpreted.

Dismissing Aquilina’s case on all four grounds, Mr Justice Cotter said: ‘In my judgment the rigid approach of mutually exclusive categories of behaviour does not flow from a natural reading of the section and the claimant’s arguments over-judicialise and over-define broad definitions.’

On the issue of ‘disrepute’, Cotter J said: ‘In my view conduct which objectively satisfies the test of potentially damaging the public perception of a teacher, therefore bringing the teaching profession into disrepute cannot be trivial or inconsequential or otherwise excusable. There is no need to add in any additional requirement.’