“Teacher charged with sex offences”

A teacher working at a school in Norfolk is facing charges of sexual activity with a girl aged between 13 and 17, and possessing indecent images.

Abuse by teachers and care workers can give rise to an action for assault against their employer. In the case of Lister v Hesley Hall Limited [2001] 2 WLR 1311, where a residential children’s home was held to be liable for the abusive actions of one of its employees, a warden. It was held that if the employee’s abusive actions were closely enough connected with his employment, it may be fair and just to hold the employer vicariously liable. The issue of vicarious liability also came up in the case of X & Y versus London Borough of Wandsworth [2006] EWCA Civ 395.

The Court of Appeal was bound (at that time) by authority to find that the Defendant’s vicarious liability for sexual assaults was subject to a non-extendable six year limitation period. In addition the Court of Appeal was bound by the decision in KR and Others v Bryn Alyn Community Homes [2003] EWCA Civ 85 to reject the contention that the school could be vicariously liable for the teacher’s failure to report what he was doing, or was about to do to the boys. All that was left was the contention that that those elements of the teacher’s breach of duty that did not constitute intentional assaults or failure to report what he was doing were sufficient. It would be tempting to allow the appeal on this basis, and remit them back to the court below for assessment, but it would be better to grant permission to appeal to the House of Lords to consider whether it could rescue the law from its incoherent state.

The judge in the court below had rejected the contention that the Defendant should be vicariously liable for his misconduct because the sexual acts themselves took place off the school premises. The Court of Appeal said that this was not sufficient to dismiss an allegation of vicarious liability, and that vicarious liability would lie in this case. The question that had to be asked, was, could the teacher’s actions towards Y be fairly regarded as being performed in the course of his employment by the school? The facts in this case were quite different from the acts of a school grounds man or the acts of a teacher in the school holidays which had no connection with his responsibilities at the school.

However in the House of Lords, (A v Hoare [2008] UKHL 6 (30 January 2008)), the Lords allowed the appeal and awarded the Claimants damages that had already been agreed in the sum of £57,500 and £70,000 respectively.

 See BBC News 22nd June 2009 Teacher on under-age sex charges