32 - How Appeal Officer Charlie Deane’s Actions May Have Undermined the Fairness of the Disciplinary Process

In the employment tribunal involving Bury College and a dismissed teacher, serious concerns have been raised about the role played by Charlie Deane, who chaired the appeal hearing. His conduct, decisions, and admissions under cross-examination may have significant implications for the tribunal’s judgment on procedural fairness.

This article outlines the key failings and breaches attributed to Mr. Deane based on tribunal evidence.

1. Appeal Decision Based on Irrelevant and Improper Factors

Mr. Deane admitted that his decision to uphold the dismissal was based on the available evidence "much of which was [the teacher's] approach in the appeal hearing" which was "litigious and technical", not on the core allegation itself. He also cited concerns about how the College might be perceived if the teacher remained in post, referencing potential reactions from students, staff, and the wider community.

These are speculative and irrelevant grounds. Employment decisions must be based on facts and evidence, not on how someone chooses to defend themselves or on imagined reputational risks.

2. Skimmed Evidence and Relied on Unverified Notes

Under cross-examination, Mr. Deane acknowledged that he had only skimmed the investigation notes and did not know that:

  • The notes had been amended due to inaccuracies.

  • None of the notes had been verified for accuracy.

  • The College had accepted some inaccuracies but still relied on the same note-taker’s unverified material to justify dismissal.

Despite this, he relied on those notes when deciding to uphold the dismissal, a decision that should raise alarm about the integrity of the appeal process.

3. Ignored the Informal Resolution by Shehla Ijaz

The teacher argued that the incident had already been resolved informally by his line manager, Shehla Ijaz, with both students and a parent satisfied. Mr. Deane failed to address this point in his written decision and did not question whether the formal disciplinary process was even necessary.

Only at tribunal did the College claim that Shehla lacked the authority to resolve the matter, a claim not raised during the disciplinary, appeal or during the pre-hearing stage. This retroactive justification appears to be a post hoc rationalisation rather than a genuine procedural stance.

4. Mischaracterised the Teacher’s Apology

Mr. Deane dismissed the teacher’s apology as lacking “genuine acceptance” and “credible remorse.” However, the teacher:

  • Apologised both in writing and verbally.

  • Explained his intentions and context.

  • Suggested training and reflection.

This response was dismissed without reasoned analysis. The rejection appears subjective, rooted in tone and impression rather than evidence; a sign of confirmation bias.

5. Used Emotional and Speculative Reasoning

In justifying his decision, Mr. Deane referred to:

  • “How would 300 students with disabilities feel?”

  • “How would staff feel about their safety?”

  • “How would the wider community feel?”

These rhetorical questions were not backed by evidence. There were no complaints from other students, no safeguarding breach identified, and no factual basis for predicting reputational damage. Such reasoning is emotional, not legal, and undermines the objectivity required in appeal proceedings.

6. Personal Conduct at Tribunal Raised Questions

During the hearing, Mr. Deane made personal attacks against the teacher’s representative. The judge had to intervene to stop him. This behaviour demonstrated a lack of professionalism and suggests he may have taken the case personally, a red flag for any appeal officer expected to act with impartiality.

7. Contradicted Evidence Regarding Disclosure of Key Document

Mr. Deane stated that a note from Student A, a note which later became central to discovering that Sarah Walton had also used the word “retard”, was given to the teacher after the appeal. Meanwhile, Becky Tootell claimed she gave the note to the teacher at the disciplinary hearing.

There is no record of this disclosure in the disciplinary meeting notes. This contradiction calls into question whether Mr. Deane had access to all the relevant facts, or worse, whether he ignored their importance.

8. Assumed Guilt and Ignored Exculpatory Findings

Mr. Deane referred to the teacher’s conduct as if it was established fact, using terms like “verbal abuse”, despite:

  • The LADO finding that the harm threshold was not met.

  • No formal finding of abuse in the internal investigation.

  • No additional evidence beyond what was available to Shehla Ijaz when she resolved the matter.

This amounts to assuming guilt, the opposite of the impartiality required in an appeal.

9. Failed to Apply Policies Consistently

Mr. Deane did not address:

  • Why Sarah Walton, the DSL, who used the same word to the same student, faced no disciplinary action.

  • Why the policies cited against the teacher were not applied to senior staff who used the same word.

This double standard damages the credibility of the process and creates the appearance of selective enforcement.

10. Missed His Duty to Correct Flawed Procedure

An appeal is meant to be a safeguard, a chance to correct errors in the disciplinary process. Instead, Mr. Deane:

  • Overlooked flawed or missing evidence,

  • Ignored policy inconsistencies,

  • Failed to verify core documents,

  • Relied on emotionally driven speculation,

  • And upheld dismissal based on irrelevant impressions.

Rather than acting as a check on the process, he reinforced its failings.

Conclusion: An Appeal Process Tainted by Bias and Assumption

Charlie Deane’s conduct as appeal chair will likely be a critical issue for the tribunal. His admissions under oath, combined with his reliance on unverified notes, dismissal of material context, speculative justifications, and inconsistent reasoning, paint a troubling picture of an appeal process that failed in its most fundamental duty: to fairly and independently review the case.

If the tribunal finds that the appeal process was procedurally flawed, Mr. Deane’s actions could be a central reason why the dismissal is found to be unfair.

Comments

Post a Comment