Court rules disciplined classroom aide did not require legal representation
A classroom music assistant accused of acting inappropriately with a 15-year-old schoolboy was not entitled to legal representation during the school’s disciplinary hearing, the Supreme Court has held.
In R (on the application of G) v Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30, a classroom assistant was alleged to have kissed the pupil and sent him text messages.
He was suspended when the boy’s parents complained. The assistant’s solicitor wrote to the school requesting that he be allowed legal representation at the subsequent disciplinary hearing and explaining that, otherwise, his human rights would be breached. This was turned down by the school. After the hearing, the assistant was dismissed for gross misconduct.
As required under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, the school reported the dismissal to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA), which maintains a “children’s barred list”. Once listed, individuals cannot undertake teaching work with children. A decision by the ISA in this case has not yet been made.
The justices considered whether there was sufficiently close link between the school’s disciplinary proceedings and ISA proceedings to engage Art 6(1).
Article 6 applies where there is a “determination of…civil rights and obligations”. The applicant’s right to practise his profession as a teaching assistant was a civil right therefore Art 6(1) would apply to ISA proceedings. However, the justices held that the disciplinary hearing was concerned only with the assistant’s employment at the school and did not determine the civil right in issue, therefore Art 6(1) was not engaged.
Lord Hope said: “It is quite clear…that the internal proceedings before the employer and the barring proceedings before the ISA are separate and distinct from each other.
“Their decisions and procedures are directed to different issues. On the one hand there is the person’s right to remain in employment with that employer. If the proceedings result in dismissal, as they did in this case, the decision to dismiss may be challenged in the employment tribunal. On the other there is a person’s right to engage in activities relating to children more generally. This is the issue which must be determined by the ISA.”
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
