Christian teacher who said being LGBT+ is a sin loses High Court challenge
A Christian teacher who told year seven pupils that being LGBT+ is a sin has lost a High Court challenge over a finding of unprofessional conduct.
Glawdys Leger made the comments to her pupils during a religious studies lesson at Bishop Justus Church of England School in Bromley, south London, in February 2022.
She showed a presentation on human rights and the class had a discussion on 'allyship', which led to Ms Leger saying that being LGBT+ is 'not fine' and that they should put God before the LGBTQ ideology, a professional conduct panel (PCP) found.
The PCP also found that the 44-year-old said being LGBT+ is a sin and that transgender people are 'just confused'.
One of the pupils complained to her mother about the comments and Ms Leger was suspended in March 2022 before being dismissed two months later.
In December 2023, the PCP found her actions amounted to unprofessional conduct, with the finding then published on the Teaching Regulation Agency's website.
Ms Leger was not prohibited from teaching in future.
Ms Leger brought legal action at the High Court in London against the Department for Education (DfE) over the panel's findings.
She argued that the panel failed to put her comments in context and that the school's duty to provide a broad and balanced curriculum did not apply to her as an individual teacher.
She also said the decision to publish the finding was unlawful as it infringed on her privacy.
But her case was dismissed by Mrs Justice Lang on Thursday who said Ms Leger's criticisms of the PCP's finding 'do not disclose any error of law, as opposed to mere disagreement'.
She said in a written judgment: 'The PCP and the secretary of state made a lawful decision that publication of the findings was a justifiable and proportionate sanction for her unacceptable professional conduct.'
A previous hearing was told that Ms Leger's comments were recorded by an 11-year-old pupil who had been advised by her mother to note down any 'transphobic' remarks.
The mother then complained to the school saying Ms Leger's comments were 'very distressing' for her child as she is 'exploring who she is – as many children are at this age', Mrs Justice Lang said.
Ms Leger argued to the High Court that the PCP's publication had interfered with her human rights because, although she was not prohibited from working, the publicity of the decision would make it 'difficult, if not impossible, to obtain new employment'.
But Mrs Justice Lang said the PCP was compelled to publish its finding and 'went no further than it considered justified'.
The published decision will become inaccessible after two years, even to employers, she added.
She also noted that Ms Leger did not ask for the PCP to sit in private at any stage despite having the opportunity to do so and that she 'actively participated' in coverage by the Daily Mail.
She said: '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'.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Leader Live
an hour ago
- Leader Live
Private schools and parents lose High Court challenges over VAT on school fees
Several schools, children who attend them and their parents, previously brought legal action against the Treasury, claiming the policy of applying VAT to fees is discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law. This includes children and families at faith schools, and families who have sent their children with special educational needs (SEN) to private school. The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, which was introduced on January 1, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part. Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there is a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide… and the right to establish a private school'. They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one. 'Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' The High Court previously heard that pupils with SEN who have education health and care plans (EHCPs) naming a private school placement, the responsible local authority will pay the fees of that school and can reclaim the VAT paid. Discussing an exemption for children with SEN without EHCPs, the judges said there is 'no real dispute that the system was in the very recent past in a parlous condition due to a chronic lack of funding' and that the main justification for not creating an exemption is that it would be unfair to children with SEN in state schools. They continued: 'As we see it, the fundamental difficulty with the claimants' case is that the clear evidence they rely on, which is now materially agreed, shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with SEN who are already being educated in that sector.' The judges added that the exemption would mean the Government would lose out on 'a very substantial slice of the revenue it hopes to raise', which could be used for SEN provision in state schools. 'The aim was redistributive — and unapologetically so,' the judges said. As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told that some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school. In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'. The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.' Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'. Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'. She added: 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. 'We will continue to work to ensure the Government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.' Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.'
The Herald Scotland
2 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Private schools and parents lose High Court challenges over VAT on school fees
This includes children and families at faith schools, and families who have sent their children with special educational needs (SEN) to private school. The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, which was introduced on January 1, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part. Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there is a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide… and the right to establish a private school'. They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one. 'Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' The High Court previously heard that pupils with SEN who have education health and care plans (EHCPs) naming a private school placement, the responsible local authority will pay the fees of that school and can reclaim the VAT paid. Discussing an exemption for children with SEN without EHCPs, the judges said there is 'no real dispute that the system was in the very recent past in a parlous condition due to a chronic lack of funding' and that the main justification for not creating an exemption is that it would be unfair to children with SEN in state schools. They continued: 'As we see it, the fundamental difficulty with the claimants' case is that the clear evidence they rely on, which is now materially agreed, shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with SEN who are already being educated in that sector.' The judges added that the exemption would mean the Government would lose out on 'a very substantial slice of the revenue it hopes to raise', which could be used for SEN provision in state schools. Nearly 20 families and several faith schools brought the legal challenge (Aaron Chown/PA) 'The aim was redistributive — and unapologetically so,' the judges said. As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told that some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school. In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'. The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.' Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'. Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'. She added: 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. 'We will continue to work to ensure the Government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.' Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.'
South Wales Argus
2 hours ago
- South Wales Argus
Private schools and parents lose High Court challenges over VAT on school fees
Several schools, children who attend them and their parents, previously brought legal action against the Treasury, claiming the policy of applying VAT to fees is discriminatory and incompatible with human rights law. This includes children and families at faith schools, and families who have sent their children with special educational needs (SEN) to private school. The Treasury defended the challenges over the policy, which was introduced on January 1, with HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Education (DfE) also taking part. Three judges at the High Court dismissed the three challenges in a decision given on Friday. Dame Victoria Sharp, Lord Justice Newey and Mr Justice Chamberlain said in a 94-page decision that while the legislation does interfere with some of the group's human rights, there is a 'broad margin of discretion in deciding how to balance the interests of those adversely affected by the policy against the interests of others who may gain from public provision funded by the money it will raise'. The three judges at the High Court later said the parts of the European Convention on Human Rights referenced in the case 'go no further than the right of access to whatever educational system the state chooses to provide… and the right to establish a private school'. They continued: 'They do not include any right to require the state to facilitate one's child's access to a private school, even if the parent's reason for preferring a private school is a religious one. 'Nor do they impose any general obligation on the state not to hinder access to private education.' The High Court previously heard that pupils with SEN who have education health and care plans (EHCPs) naming a private school placement, the responsible local authority will pay the fees of that school and can reclaim the VAT paid. Discussing an exemption for children with SEN without EHCPs, the judges said there is 'no real dispute that the system was in the very recent past in a parlous condition due to a chronic lack of funding' and that the main justification for not creating an exemption is that it would be unfair to children with SEN in state schools. They continued: 'As we see it, the fundamental difficulty with the claimants' case is that the clear evidence they rely on, which is now materially agreed, shows not only how bad it might be for them if they had to transfer to the state sector, but also how bad it currently is for many of the 1.1 million children with SEN who are already being educated in that sector.' The judges added that the exemption would mean the Government would lose out on 'a very substantial slice of the revenue it hopes to raise', which could be used for SEN provision in state schools. Nearly 20 families and several faith schools brought the legal challenge (Aaron Chown/PA) 'The aim was redistributive — and unapologetically so,' the judges said. As well as religious beliefs and SEN, the High Court was told that some children are privately educated because of a need for a single-sex environment because of previous abuse, including one of the pupils in the claim, who was bullied at her local state school. In their ruling, the judges said the evidence of the mother of the pupil indicated that she had moved her child to a single-sex school for academic reasons, adding 'we do not think that there is any evidence to show that AMB 'needs' to be educated in a single-sex environment, although we accept that her mother would prefer that'. The three judges added: 'While sexual harassment of girls at school is undoubtedly a problem, we do not consider that the evidence establishes more generally that there is a significant cohort of girls who, as a result of having suffered such harassment, can only be safely educated in a single-sex environment.' Sophie Kemp, partner and head of public law at Kingsley Napley, who represented the claimants, described the ruling as a 'disappointing decision'. Julie Robinson, chief executive officer of the Independent Schools Council (ISC), said it was an 'unprecedented tax on education'. She added: 'The ISC is carefully considering the court's judgment and next steps. Our focus remains on supporting schools, families and children. 'We will continue to work to ensure the Government is held to account over the negative impact this tax on education is having across independent and state schools.' Caroline Santer, headteacher at The King's School, Fair Oak, in Hampshire, one of the schools that brought the legal challenge, said: 'After over two months of waiting, this judgment comes as a huge disappointment, but we will continue to challenge the legality of this policy.'
