Supreme Court Upholds Dismissal of Headteacher Over Failure to Disclose Relationship with Convicted Paedophile

© Tom Blewitt & Zack Griffiths — Predator Awareness

In a landmark decision, the UK Supreme Court has upheld the lawful dismissal of Ms Reilly, a primary school headteacher employed by Sandwell Council, after she failed to disclose a longstanding friendship with a convicted paedophile.

Background: A Breach of Trust

Ms Reilly, a respected educator with an unblemished disciplinary record, had maintained a close relationship with Mr Selwood, who was convicted in 2010 for possessing indecent images of children. Despite being aware of his conviction, Ms Reilly did not inform the school’s governing body or the local authority. When the relationship came to light, she was suspended and later dismissed for gross misconduct.

During disciplinary proceedings, Ms Reilly refused to acknowledge that her relationship posed a potential risk to pupils or that her failure to disclose it was inappropriate. Her appeal was dismissed, and although the Employment Tribunal found procedural flaws in the appeal process, it ruled the dismissal substantively fair. Compensation was reduced to nil.

Supreme Court Judgment: Safeguarding Comes First

The Supreme Court was asked to determine whether Ms Reilly had a contractual duty to disclose the relationship and whether her failure justified dismissal. Her contract required her to “advise, assist and inform the Governing Body” and to be “accountable… for the safety of all pupils.”

Ms Reilly argued that her relationship did not engage safeguarding responsibilities. The Court disagreed. It ruled that the association created “a potential risk to children” and emphasized that risk assessment is the responsibility of governors—not individual staff. Her refusal to accept this risk “suggested a lack of insight” and made her continued leadership untenable.

Lessons for Schools and Colleges

This ruling reinforces the critical importance of transparency in safeguarding. While not every association with a convicted individual warrants dismissal, failure to disclose such relationships can undermine trust and compromise pupil safety.

Key Takeaways for Educational Institutions:

– Disclosure Obligations: Staff contracts should explicitly require disclosure of relationships with individuals suspected, charged, or convicted of serious offences.
– Risk Assessment Protocols: Upon disclosure, schools must assess risk and implement safeguards—such as restricting access to premises or sensitive information.
– Disciplinary Action: If a staff member fails to disclose a relationship that poses a risk, institutions should investigate, hold a disciplinary hearing, and determine appropriate sanctions based on:
  – The nature of access to pupils
  – The reason for nondisclosure
  – The staff member’s insight and acceptance of responsibility
  – Confidence in future compliance

Disqualification by Association: Legal Duties Under the Childcare Act 2006

Staff working with children under eight must disclose known unspent convictions of household members. Schools must:

– Notify Ofsted within 14 days
– Inform the staff member and request a waiver application
– Consider redeployment, remote work, or paid leave
– Document all decisions and risk assessments

Conclusion: A Cautionary Tale

The Supreme Court’s decision underscores that safeguarding is not negotiable. Ms Reilly’s case is a stark reminder that leadership in education demands not only professional competence but also ethical clarity and accountability. Disclosure is not merely a bureaucratic formality—it is a cornerstone of child protection.

Follow us on:

Read our latest articles:

Tom Blewitt

Leave a comment