Landmark win against Secretary of State for Education in the High Court

I have been a part of the education sector as a teacher and head teacher for 25 years. Many within the system are treated unfairly. Yet, many never reach a point where they are able to uncover unlawful behaviour through a court of law. I do not relish being in this position and it has taken almost three years to reach this point. A point where I can say that, in March 2019, I won a Judicial Review against the Secretary of State for Education, Damian Hinds.

In December 2015, I left a school I had been the head of for 10 years after being subjected to vile online abuse. I rejected a settlement as I wanted people to know the truth about what I had been put through.

Many months after I left, the Local Authority, Bath and North East Somerset conducted an investigation into safeguarding. This case was dismissed by the TRA (Teacher Regulation Agency).

Following my resignation, the school was taken over by a large multi-academy trust. After I had left, Ofsted produced a report in June 2016 placing the school in special measures. Under my leadership the school had been rated as outstanding for many years in two separate inspections, including two further church Ofsteds. This is a recipe widely being used across the country by Ofsted. It is little wonder that so many within education are critical of the inspection system.

In 2016 I commenced legal action against an NUT member for defamation. I was warned, by NUT solicitors:

‘Our client remains hopeful that your client will not pursue this weak but potentially very damaging claim, and in those circumstances, it may never be necessary for our client to make the extensive and serious allegations that would form the basis of her defence of truth’

I considered this to be a threat in order to deter me from proceeding with legal action. This did not deter me.

I won my case against the NUT member receiving an unequivocal public apology in court and costs paid to me.

Just two months after the win against the NUT member was reported in the national press, the NUT referred me to the TRA.

In January 2018 my MP, Chris Skidmore raised the NUT referral in Parliament:

‘My constituent Mahzia Pepe Hart was Head of an outstanding Multi Academy Primary Trust in Bath and North East Somerset. In 2015 she resigned following bullying on social media which resulted in false accusations that were investigated by the National College for Teaching and Leadership and which were subsequently dismissed. In January 2017 Mrs Hart took the NUT to court for defamation and successfully won her case. Two months later however, the NUT were able to refer Mrs Hart to the NCTL again. Will the Minister look into this case and investigate how is it right that teachers’ lives can be made a misery by repeated malicious referrals to the NCTL, particularly by those who have a vested interest?’

Chris Skidmore is a Minister within the Department for Education. (DfE)

Nick Gibb, Minister for Schools responded:

‘Well my Honourable friend raises a very important point. The regulation of teachers is a very important function of the National College of Teaching and Leadership. I will look into the issue my Honourable friend raised and I am happy to meet with him.’

To my knowledge this meeting did not take place and if it did, I have never been given an update on it.

Judicial Review Against Education Secretary

As a result of the NUT referral, the TRA applied for ‘witnesses’ to be classed as ‘vulnerable’. This means that they are granted ‘special measures’ in order to give evidence, so they may not have to attend the hearing in person and may be able to give evidence via video link. My lawyers challenged this decision.

There is an element of prejudice to have witnesses complaining about treatment of them, as being ‘vulnerable’, before a hearing even starts.

In granting the judicial review the judge stated that a person ‘should not lightly be deprived of being able to see those who accuse her’ and that ‘there was no explanation by any of those witnesses of why they said they felt unable to give evidence in the same room as the claimant’.

Interestingly, the Secretary of State, Damian Hinds, initially defended the decision of the TRA, however when the time came to file a defence, he reversed this decision, informing my legal representatives that he no longer intended to defend the Decision. My lawyers challenged this.

A consent order was put before the court. The Secretary of State agreed the consent order as shown above in the Court documents which are in the public domain.

The decision to grant the witnesses special measures has been quashed in the High Court of Justice and the costs of the claim were ordered to be paid to me by the Secretary of State.

The decision by the Secretary of State, Damian Hinds, has been found to be ‘unlawful’ and that he ‘erred in law’.

Sufficient reasons were not given for why these ‘witnesses’ were deemed to be ‘vulnerable’.

I left my job as head teacher in 2015 and I rejected a settlement. I had one referral brought by the Local Authority dismissed. I successfully sued an NUT member for defamation. I have won a judicial review against the Secretary of State for Education, Damian Hinds.

I am now expected to believe I will receive a fair hearing by a panel appointed by the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State, Damian Hinds, who initially supported his panel’s decision.

The public money that has been ploughed into this is eye-watering at a time when schools are at crisis point due to a severe lack of funding.

Why did the Secretary of State feel it necessary to support a decision that was clearly unlawful? That the Secretary of State, Damian Hinds ‘erred in law’, failing to make the correct legal decision, should be of concern to all. 

I do not and have never condoned bullying. Throughout my time in education I have taught children and adults about the importance of standing up to bullies and ‘blowing the whistle’.

Those I have worked with throughout my career will know this. My work with Baroness Doreen Lawrence helping children to understand the importance of fighting against injustice has genuinely impacted communities. Our school was a positive, happy, calm environment in which everyone was made to feel safe and welcome.

I empathise with anyone who is faced with the decision on speaking out. I have been in this position for over three years.

However, in the High Court of Justice His Honour Judge Bidder outlined that I have the right to see people face-to-face. I should not be deprived of the right for my lawyers to ask relevant questions to those making claims against me. I am aware that some of those who have been asked to be ‘witnesses’ have expressed concerns about the ‘pressure’ being put upon them to come forward.

On Twitter, I read a lot about corruption within academies. As a child, I attended state schools, and received free school meals throughout my education. I understand the discrimination and inequality many face within the system. As a head teacher I wanted the best for all children. I felt it was my duty to deliver this regardless of whether the school was under Local Authority control or academy status.

In 2010, when the decision to convert to academy arose, I never thought for one-minute that I, but more importantly, the children would become pawns in a political landscape.

I have been contacted by head teachers who have experienced similar treatment. I have been fortunate enough to be supported in financially challenging the injustices that have taken place. Not everyone can do this. However, many of us can support and speak out for each other.

“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” Martin Luther King Jnr.