SAL1 -v- Secretary of State for Education (anonymity order)

Administrative CourtHigh CourtKing's Bench DivisionAnonymity Order

Case number: AC-2025-LON-000532

In the High Court of Justice
King’s Bench Division
Administrative Court

In the matter of a statutory appeal pursuant to Regulation 17
of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012

28 November 2025

Before:

The Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

Between:

SAL1

-v-

Secretary of State for Education

Order

On the Appellant’s application for the hearing to be held in private and for anonymity orders to be made in respect of the Appellant, her family, the school and all other persons referred to in the case;

Following consideration of the documents lodged by the parties;

Order by the Honourable Mrs Justice Lang DBE

  1. Under the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and pursuant to section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and CPR 39.2(4):
    a. The names of the Appellant, her daughter and son are to be withheld from the public and must not be disclosed in any proceedings in public.
    b. The Appellant is to be referred to orally and in writing as “SAL1”.
    c. Her daughter is to be referred to orally and in writing as “SAL2.
    d. Her son is to be referred to orally and in writing as “SAL3”.
  2. Pursuant to section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1981, there must be no publication of the identity of the Appellant, her daughter and son, or of any matter likely to lead to their identification, in any report of, or otherwise in connection with, these proceedings.
  3. Pursuant to CPR 5.4C:
    (a) Within 7 days of the date of service of this order, the parties must file and serve a redacted copy of any statement of case already filed, omitting the name, address and any other information likely to lead to the identification of the Appellant, her daughter and son;
    (b) If any statement of case subsequently filed includes information likely to lead to the identification of the Appellant, her daughter or son, a redacted copy omitting that information must be filed at the same time and must then be served with the unredacted version;
    (c) Unless the Court grants permission under CPR 5.4C(6), no non- party may obtain a copy of any unredacted statement of case.
  4. Save as set out above, the applications for anonymity orders are refused.
  5. The Appellant’s application for the hearing to be held in private is refused.
  6. The Appellant’s application for the appeal to be a rehearing, not a review, will be determined by the Judge at the commencement of the hearing.
  7. Liberty to apply to vary or discharge this order on 2 days notice to the other party.
  8. Costs reserved.

Reasons

  1. The Appellant appeals, pursuant to regulation 17 of the Teachers Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (“the 2012 Regulations”), against the decision of the Respondent to impose a Prohibition Order, on the recommendation of the Professional Conduct Panel (“the Panel”) following their findings of unacceptable professional conduct, dated 16 January 2025. The hearing is listed for 18 December 2025.
  2. Pursuant to CPR 39.2, the Appellant applies for the hearing to be conducted in private and for anonymity orders for herself, her family, the school, and everyone referred to in the case, in reliance upon Article 8 ECHR. The Respondent opposes the application.
  3. The Appellant relies on the fact that she is a vulnerable person with a history of depression and anxiety; she would find it distressing for her health issues to be referred to in public; she has school age children both of whom have health conditions; she has concern for the safety of her and her family (she has been accused of paedophilia).
  4. The Employment Tribunal and Employment Appeal Tribunal made anonymity orders and held hearings in private. However, at the hearing before the Panel, the Panel identified the different considerations that applied in professional disciplinary proceedings and refused the application to hold the hearing in private because of the public interest in a public hearing and a presumption of a public hearing, as well as the fact that the decision would in due course be made public. They agreed to hear sensitive evidence relating to the Appellant’s health and children in private. No anonymity order was made.
  5. CPR 39.2(1) provides that the general rule is that a hearing is to be in public. By sub-paragraph (2), in deciding whether to hold a hearing in private, the court must consider any duty to protect or have regard to a right to a freedom of expression which may be affected. Hearings in private under on the grounds set out in CPR 39.2(3) are a derogation from the principle of open justice and must only be ordered when necessary to secure the proper administration of justice. Anonymity orders are granted pursuant to sub-paragraph (4) if non-disclosure is necessary to secure the proper administration of justice and in order to protect the interests of any person. These provisions reflect the principle of open justice. When exercising its discretion to direct a private hearing, the court will seek to balance the public interest in open justice and the private interest in favour of privacy.
  6. I refer to the authorities cited in the helpful notes to CPR Part 39.2 in the White Book.
  7. In R (Leger) v Secretary of State for Education [2025] EWHC 665 (Admin), in the circumstances of that case, I held that the publication of the Secretary of State’s decision, including the teacher’s name, was an interference with Article 8 rights, but it was prescribed by law under the 2012 Regulations and justified since it met the legitimate aims of advancing public safety, the protection of health and morals and the protection of the rights and freedoms and others; and was proportionate (at [109] – [129]). There is a public interest in publication as it maintains public confidence in the regulation of the profession, helps the profession to understand the standards expected of teachers, and enables prospective employers to make informed judgments on the suitability of job applicants, thus keeping children safe.
  8. Thus, for the reasons set out in Leger, the Appellant’s identity and the evidence will eventually be published by the Secretary of State, subject to the outcome of the appeal.
  9. In my judgment, anonymity orders are required to protect the interests of the Appellant’s minor children, pursuant to CPR 39.2(3), and it follows that the Appellant must also be anonymised, in order to avoid her children being identified via disclosure of her name.
  10. However, in my view, the factors relied upon by the Appellant do not justify any further departure from the principle of open justice, either by a private hearing or further anonymity orders. The Appellant’s health conditions are, as I understand it, relied upon by her as an explanation for her behaviour and so it would be misleading to exclude this relevant evidence at the hearing or in the final decision. Save for the protection of her children’s interests, the public interest in an open hearing outweighs her concerns. I consider that her children’s interests are sufficiently protected by anonymity orders.

Signed: Mrs Justice Lang
Dated: 28 November 2025