In R (Leger) v Secretary of State for Education [2025] EWHC 665 (Admin), Ms Gladwys Leger was a teacher at Bishop Justus Church of England School [5]. She is “a born-again ‘conservative’ Roman Catholic” who believes that biological sex is immutable and should not be tampered with and that sexual relationships should only exist within a marriage between a man and a woman [8]. She brought a claim arising from her dismissal from the school.

The background

During a religious studies class segment described as “Human Rights”, which included a PowerPoint presentation on LGBTQ+ topics and protected characteristics, Ms Leger explained her Christian beliefs to the class and why LGBTQ+ ideology was contrary to them [11]. One of the children (‘Pupil A’) told her parents about it, and her mother e-mailed the school, complaining that Ms Leger’s comments were “very distressing” to her daughter “who strongly believes people should be who they are” and who was “exploring who she is – as many children are at this age”. Pupil A later referred to her own sexuality in her oral evidence to the Professional Conduct Panel hearing [12]. Ms Leger was suspended in March 2022 and dismissed in May 2022 [13]; further, the school referred the matter to the Teaching Regulation Agency, and in 2023, Ms Leger appeared before a Professional Conduct Panel [‘PCP’], sitting in public [14-15]. The allegations and the conclusions of the PCP on each of them were as follows:

“You are guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct [Proved] and/or conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute [Not Proved] in that:

1) Whilst working as a teacher at Bishop Justus Church of England School in or around February 2022 you made inappropriate comments whilst teaching a class with words to the effect of:

1. 1. 1. Being and/or LGBTQ+ is ‘not fine’; [Proved]
      2. LGBTQ+ is a sin; [Proved]
      3. that God should be before LGBTQ+; [Proved]
      4. God will love you more if you are not LGBTQ+; [Not Proved]
      5. people will always be seen by God as having their birth gender; [Proved]
      6. that transgender people are ‘just confused’ [Proved]

2) Your conduct at Allegation 1 was contrary to Fundamental British values in that it lacked tolerance to those with different beliefs. [Not Proved]” [16].

In December 2023, the PCP determined that her actions had amounted to unprofessional conduct but concluded that, though the conduct was serious, it would not negatively damage public perception of the profession and did not amount to conduct that might bring the profession into disrepute [22] – and it did not ban her from teaching. Its decision was published on the Teaching Regulation Agency’s website [25].

The appeal

Ms Leger appealed, arguing:

• that her words had been taken out of context and that the decision had been unfair at common law and/or Article 6 ECHR (Ground 1);
• that the decision had been unfair at common law and/or Article 6 ECHR in that crucial findings were made which were not included in the original allegations or evidence or put to her in cross-examination (Ground 2);
• that the PCP had misdirected itself in having regard to “the duty on teachers and schools to provide a broad and balanced curriculum” when deciding that her comments had been inappropriate because the duty lay only on the school, not on its teachers (Ground 3);
• that the PCP had misdirected itself in law about the extent of her rights under Articles 9 and 10 ECHR (Grounds 4, 5 & 6); and
• that the publication of the full decision on the Secretary of State’s website, including her name, breached her right to a private life under Article 8 ECHR (Ground 7).

It was argued for Ms Leger that the PCP and the Secretary of State had taken her words out of context and/or failed to take proper account of the context in which her comments had been made. She was teaching religious education; it was well-known in the school that she is a Christian; she was responding directly to a pupil’s questions about LBGTQ+ issues; and the words were spoken during a single discussion with pupils on 8 February 2022 [43]. Though the PCP did not accept that her comments were a “one-off incident” it had no evidence to the contrary. The PCP had “prayed in aid” two incidents: not showing a video about LGBTQ+ issues to her class and removing an Equality Diversity and Inclusion poster from the classroom – which, she argued, were “nothing to the point, they were not subject to any prosecution and were not subject to any criticism by the school or the TRA prosecutors” [44].

Further, the allegations “followed the note scribbled by an 11-year-old Pupil A at the lesson”; it was not a full note, it did not represent a full picture of what she had said or the discussion in class, and other more positive comments from other pupils had not been mentioned by the PCP [45].

Finally, in light of the relevant advice from the Department for Education, the PCP and the Secretary of State had “failed to give proper weight to the context, namely, that the Claimant was teaching a Religious Studies lesson in a Christian school, and that the Claimant was answering a pupil’s question” [49].

The judgment

On Ground 1, Lang J concluded:

“This was indeed a Christian school, but the Claimant’s own evidence was that she had been unwilling to support that school’s policy. The result was the nuanced finding that while ‘Ms Leger’s comments lacked respect for the right of others’ this did not derive ‘from a lack of a tolerance’ nor had she any ‘intention of causing distress to pupils’. That said, her ‘actions were at risk of upsetting pupils in the lesson’ and her ‘choice not to present a balanced view undermined the School community’s aspiration to provide a supportive environment for children who may be exploring sexual identity’. It was open to the PCP to conclude that such behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct” [54].

Ground 1 failed [56].

On Ground 2 (unfairness), Lang J accepted the Secretary of State’s submission that it was not procedurally unfair for the PCP to consider the evidence that Ms Leger had given in her witness statement to explain and justify her actions on 8 February 2022, even though they were not pleaded as part of the allegations, because they were part of her own case and set out in her evidence. Those matters were “plainly relevant as part of the context within which the alleged unprofessional conduct occurred”, and “The fact that the Claimant’s explanation of the context within which she made her comments may have undermined, rather than assisted, her case does not render it unfair for the PCP to have regard to that explanation” [63]. Ground 2 also failed [64].

As to Ground 3 (broad and balanced curriculum):

“The statutory duty to have a ‘broad and balanced curriculum’ rests on schools, not individual teachers. But the curriculum has to be delivered by teachers. Generally, teachers are expected to deliver the school curriculum in accordance with school policy and directions given by senior members of staff”[70]

– and she had refused to do so [72]. Ground 3 also failed [74].

On Ground 4, 5 and 6 (Articles 9 & 10 ECHR), Ms Leger’s primary submission that the PCP misdirected itself on the requirements of Article 9 and Article 10 ECHR was ill-founded [92] and, in any event, the PCP had correctly directed itself on the law [94]. They also failed [108].

On Ground 8 (Article 8 ECHR), it was common ground that professional reputation could be protected as an aspect of private life [116]. However, publication of the full decision in Ms Leger’s case, including her name, was clearly “prescribed by law” in Regulation 8(5) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 [117], and publication of the decision in full was consistent with the fact that public notice of PCP hearings was given in advance and hearings were held in public [118]. The regulatory aims of publication advanced the legitimate aims in Article 8(2) of advancing public safety, the protection of health and morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. Further, the PCP had specifically addressed and applied the proportionality principles in Bank Mellat v HM Treasury (No 2) [2013] UKSC 38 when deciding whether to impose a prohibition order or the lesser sanction of publication [126]. Therefore, the decision was  lawful, and Ground 7 also failed [128 & 129].

Claim dismissed [130].