R (G) v Governors of X School [2011]

R (G) v Governors of X School [2011] UKSC 30 examined whether the claimant's rights under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were engaged in a disciplinary hearing conducted by X School. The claimant argued that the school's refusal to allow him legal representation violated his Article 6 rights.

The background to the appeal involved the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006, which mandates schools to report dismissals involving findings of sexual misconduct to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). Part 1 of Schedule 3 of the Act outlines ISA's procedures, including the opportunity for individuals facing inclusion on the children's barred list to make representations. The claimant, a music assistant at X School, faced disciplinary proceedings due to allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a student. Despite his request for legal representation, the school refused.

The disciplinary panel found the claimant guilty of gross misconduct, leading to his summary dismissal. The claimant argued that the denial of legal representation breached his Article 6 rights and sought judicial review. His claim was upheld at the High Court and Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court, however, allowed the appeal by a majority. The lead judgment by Lord Dyson concluded that Article 6(1) did not apply to the disciplinary proceedings. While the right to practice as a teaching assistant might be directly determined by ISA's decision to include him on the barred list, the school's disciplinary proceedings were only concerned with his employment status, not his civil rights. Additionally, the disciplinary proceedings did not exert substantial influence over ISA's decision-making process.

Lord Dyson endorsed the test of substantial influence formulated by Laws LJ in the Court of Appeal. This test considers factors such as whether the decision in one set of proceedings could significantly impact the determination of civil rights in another set of proceedings. Applying this test, the majority found that the school's decision did not satisfy the criteria for substantial influence, thus concluding that Article 6 rights were not engaged at the disciplinary hearing stage.

However, Lord Kerr dissented, arguing that the disciplinary proceedings were critical in testing the evidence against the claimant and should be viewed as part of the overall process determining his civil rights. He emphasised the importance of considering the fairness of the entire process rather than focusing solely on individual stages. He also contended that the claimant should have been allowed legal representation at the internal disciplinary hearing to safeguard his rights under Article 6. He believed that denying legal representation at this stage could jeopardise the fairness of the process.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court held that Article 6(1) did not apply to the school's disciplinary proceedings, as they were not directly determinative of the claimant's civil rights. The decision highlights the complex interplay between disciplinary proceedings and the protection of civil rights under the ECHR.
Back to blog
UOL Case Bank

UOL Case Bank

Upon joining, you become a valuable UOL student and gain instant access to over 2,100 case summaries. UOL Case Bank is constantly expanding. Speed up your revision with us now.

Subscribe Now

Where are our students from?

Yale University
Council of Europe
Baker Mckenzie 
University of Chicago
Columbia University
New York University
University of Michigan 
INSEAD
University College London (UCL)
London School of Economics (LSE)
King’s College London (KCL)
University of London
University of Manchester
University of Zurich
University of York
Brandeis University
University of Exeter
University of Sheffield
Boston University
University of Washington
University of Leeds
University of Law
Royal Holloway, University of London 
Birkbeck, University of London
SOAS, University of London
University of Kent
University of Hull
Queen’s University Belfast
Toronto Metropolitan University
Hong Kong University of Science and Technology
University of Buckingham

  • Criminal Practice

    Diagrams and Charts

    Our carefully designed diagrams and charts will guide you through complex legal issues.

  • Criminal Law

    Clear and Succinct Definitions

    Key concepts are concisely defined to help you understand legal topics quickly.

  • Property Law

    Statutory Provisions

    Statutory provisions are provided side by side with legal concepts to help you swiftly locate the relevant legislation.

  • Public Law

    Case Summaries

    We have summarised important cases for you so that you don't need to read long and boring cases.

  • Evidence

    Rules and Exceptions

    Rules and exceptions are clearly listed so that you know when a rule applies and when it doesn't.

  • Company Law

    Terminology

    Legal terms and key concepts are explained at the beginning of each chapter to help you learn efficiently.

  • Case Law

    Case law is provided side by side with legal concepts so that you know how legal principles and precedents were established.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Law Essay Guide

    You will learn essential law exam skills and essay writing techniques that are not taught in class.

  • Law Exam Guide

    Problem Question Guide

    We will show you how to answer problem questions step by step to achieve first-class results.

  • Conflict of Laws

    Structured Explanations

    Complex legal concepts are broken down into concise and digestible bullet point explanations.

  • Legal System and Method

    Legal Research

    You will learn legal research techniques with our study guide and become a proficient legal researcher.

  • Jurisprudence and Legal Theory

    Exam-focused

    All essential concepts, principles, and case law are included so that you can answer exam questions quickly.