Court rules that suspension of a school teacher, who repeatedly misgendered a pupil, did not breach his right to freedom of expression or religion

The Claimant was an evangelical Christian who had strongly held views regarding whether homosexuality was a sin and whether an individual could change gender. Whilst employed as a teacher he failed to use a pupil’s preferred pronouns. Following a parental complaint he was suspended whilst the complaint was being investigated. Whilst suspended, the Claimant went onto television and “outed” the pupil as trans and repeatedly failed to use the pupil’s preferred pronouns. It was also subsequently uncovered through investigation that he had told a class he was against gay marriage and believed it to be a sin and had shown pupils inappropriate videos that contained anti-Islamic content.

As a consequence of his behaviour, the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found that he had failed to comply with the Teacher Standards published by the Secretary of State. In particular, he had failed to treat children with dignity. They consequently found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that might bring the teaching profession into disrepute. The Defendant accepted the recommendation by the TRA that the claimant should receive a prohibition order for a minimum of two years.

The Claimant argued that since his ardent beliefs were a manifestation of his religious beliefs, there had been a breach of his rights under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) Article 9 (freedom of thought, religion and conscience) and Article 10 (freedom of expression).

The court (Pepperall J.) dismissed the claim on the following basis:

1. The court fully accepted that the Claimant’s rights of religious thought and expression were engaged. In relation to the latter, it recalled Sedley LJ observations in Redmond-Bate v. DPP (1999) 7 BHRC 375, at [20]: “Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having."
2. The court, however, held that both Articles 9 and 10 were qualified rights. The court was of no doubt that the protection of children was a legitimate aim and that the importance of protecting children outweighed the restriction on the Claimant’s ardently held beliefs.
3. The court implicitly held that the restrictions placed on the Claimant through the published teacher standards were prescribed by law.
4. The decision to respect a pupil’s wish to use different pronouns from those used at birth rested with the school and not an individual teacher. The Claimant should have raised any concerns discreetly and privately with the Headteacher, not ignore the school’s decision. Moreover, the Claimant had the option of avoiding the issue of pronouns by addressing the pupil by name. Furthermore, the restrictions merely applied to his role as a teacher and not his life away from work.
5. The court emphasised that merely because misgendering a pupil or believing homosexuality was wrong is not unlawful, it does not follow it is appropriate conduct for a teacher. Accordingly, the TRA were properly entitled to find that the Claimant was guilty of professional misconduct by repeatedly in class and on television misgendering a pupil.
6. Given the impact that the Claimant’s conduct had on the misgendered pupil and apparent lack of remorse, the harsh sanction of a two years prohibition was proportionate and his substantive claims were dismissed.
7. Other procedural grounds were dismissed.

This case provides a useful precis on how schools and others should handle any conflict between a teachers’ personal beliefs and their professional duties to pupils to treat them with care and respect. The case emphasises that an interest or right does not have to be one expressly protected by law to justify a restriction in either Article 9 or 10.

The judgment for Sutcliffe v Secretary of State for Education [2024] EWHC 1878 (Admin) can be found here.

Joe Thomas is a barrister at Landmark Chambers.