Teacher accused of possessing indecent pictures of children was fairly dismissed

In L v K the claimant, a teacher, was charged but not subsequently prosecuted with possession of indecent images of children. Police Scotland officers attended at his home to carry out enquiries relative to an IP address linked to online indecent images. Subsequently he was charged with possession of a computer containing indecent images of children. His son, who lived with him, was similarly charged. Ultimately no criminal proceedings were brought against either of them.

In L v K the claimant, a teacher, was charged but not subsequently prosecuted with possession of indecent images of children. Police Scotland officers attended at his home to carry out enquiries relative to an IP address linked to online indecent images. Subsequently he was charged with possession of a computer containing indecent images of children. His son, who lived with him, was similarly charged. Ultimately no criminal proceedings were brought against either of them.

The teacher informed the headmaster of the school where he was employed as to what had happened. The headmaster sought advice from the local education authority.

Following a disciplinary hearing the employer had decided there was not enough evidence to conclude that the teacher had downloaded the images. However, the employer could not exclude the risk that the teacher was responsible and that presented an unacceptable risk to children should he be returned to his post. The employer also found there was a serious reputational risk should they continue to employ him. He was dismissed from his post. He claimed unfair dismissal.

The ET held that there was some other substantial reason (“SOSR”) for the dismissal and that it was fair. However, this judgment was overturned by the Employment Appeal Tribunal who took the view that, as the letter inviting the claimant to the disciplinary hearing was based on misconduct and gave no notice of reputational damage as a potential ground of dismissal, it was unfair.

The employer appealed to the Court of Session who ruled that the EAT had wrongly categorised the reason for dismissal as misconduct when, as the tribunal had made clear, it was SOSR.

Read more

Latest News

Read More

Wellbeing pays: the ROI HR can’t ignore

9 October 2025

Skills

7 October 2025

How to build a skills-based strategy

A key challenge for organisations looking at their skills strategy is getting their job data under control. Discover how creating a single source of truth...

Artificial Intelligence, Globalisation

7 October 2025

Talent strategies for business expansion and growth

Global Expansion 2025: Powerful Talent Management Strategies for a Diverse and AI-Driven Workforce....

Newsletter

Receive the latest HR news and strategic content

Please note, as per the GDPR Legislation, we need to ensure you are ‘Opted In’ to receive updates from ‘theHRDIRECTOR’. We will NEVER sell, rent, share or give away your data to third parties. We only use it to send information about our products and updates within the HR space To see our Privacy Policy – click here

Latest HR Jobs

London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine – Human ResourcesSalary: £39,432 to £45,097 per annum (pro-rata) inclusive This provides summary information and comment on the

Harper Adams University – Human ResourcesSalary: £46,049 to £50,253 per annum. Grade 10 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where

University of Cambridge – Department of Clinical NeurosciencesSalary: £27,319 to £31,236 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal

Royal Conservatoire of ScotlandSalary: £52,074 to £58,611 This provides summary information and comment on the subject areas covered. Where employment tribunal and appellate court cases

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE

Read the latest digital issue of theHRDIRECTOR for FREE