By Charlotte Webster-
A man who was expelled from a social work course following a series of Facebook posts that labelled homosexuality as a ‘sin’ and ‘wicked’, has won an appeal against the decision to remove him.
The Court of Appeal ruled that the University of Sheffield disciplinary process that removed Felix Ngole from the MA in social work course in 2016 was “flawed and unfair” to him. This ruling overturned a 2017 High Court ruling by district . A judicial review claim from Ngole that the university’s decision was an unlawful interference with his rights to freedom of religion and of expression under the European Convention on Human Rights, was arbitrary and unfair was rejected
AD: Capeesh Restaurant
In the latest judgement, the Court of Appeal said that the university should convene a fitness to practise committee to reconsider the case and determine whether Ngole should be allowed to study. The University’s disciplinary proceedings were flawed in a number of respects:
The University adopted a position from the outset of the disciplinary proceedings which was untenable: namely, that any expression of disapproval of same-sex relations (however mildly expressed) on a public social media or other platform which could be traced back to the person making it, was a breach
of the professional guidelines.
The court said the University’s stance was not in accordance with the relevant HCPC professional code and guidelines, adding that The HCPC professional code and guidelines did not prohibit the use of social media to share personal views and opinions, but simply said that the University might have to take action “if the comments posted were offensive, for example if they were racist or sexually explicit”.
AD: Oysterian Sea Food Restaurant And Bar
The court said that whilst the social work’s student was understandable, the right to freedom of expression is not an unqualified right: professional bodies and organisations are entitled to place reasonable and proportionate restrictions on those subject to their professional codes; and, just because a belief is said to be a religious belief, does not give a person subject to professional regulation the right to express such beliefs in any way he or she sees fit.
The court added that it will be apparent, therefore, that both sides adopted extreme and polarised
positions from the outset, which meant that the disciplinary proceedings got off on the wrong track.
SIGNED
Ngole, who started the two-year MA in September 2014 had signed a 20-point agreement on his enrolment confirming he had read the Health and Care Profession Council’s guidelines on student standards and ethics and would strive to confirm to their expectations. One of the guidelines he read included a requirement that he did not allow his views about person’s sexuality to prejudice his interaction with them, and that he was aware that his conduct outside the programme may compromise his entitlement to complete his studies.
The case concerned a series of posts Ngole made on his Facebook account in September 2015 concerning the imprisonment of American registrar Kim Davis for her refusal to issue marriage licences to same-sex couples on grounds of her Christian beliefs.
Ngole, who completed his first placement by then made about 20 posts, which included describing homosexuality as a “sin” and a “wicked act” and quoting Biblical passages condemning homosexual acts. The university received an anonymous complaint, sparking an investigation which started an investigation.
FITNESS TO PRACTISE COMMITTEE
A fitness to practise committee made up of three university academics was convened to hear his case including three academics from the university. Ngole was told that his views were ”incongruous” to that of social work, but the MA student insisted that the complaint made against him was malicious and made by a female complainant with hostile views against Christianity.
Judges at The Court Of Appeal said The interpretation of the regulatory framework by the Judge gives the HCPC and the University ‘an unfettered power’ to determine whether an expression undermines public confidence in the profession and renders an individual unfit to practice. Any limitations on the freedom of speech by the HCPC Guidance on Conduct and Ethics for Students must be construed strictly.
The scope and manner of any discretion the University can exercise on the issue was not clearly outlined in relation to its application to his Facebook posts. Nothing in the regulatory framework prohibits polite expression of a Biblical view on same-sex marriage by a student. In response to the judgement, a University of Sheffield spokesperson said: “The University of Sheffield supports the rights of students to hold and debate a wide range of views and beliefs. However, for students studying on courses that lead to professional registration, we have a responsibility to look at how any concerns raised could impact a student’s fitness to practise once registered.
“Fitness to practise committees use national professional guidance and often need to consider a student’s insight and consideration about their chosen profession. This case was therefore not part of the University’s standard disciplinary procedures or about its support of freedom of speech.
“The court dismissed the majority of the appeal submitted by the applicant and has only upheld one aspect to do with early procedural processes. The university will be considering its response to the judgement.”
AD: Heritage And Restaurant Lounge Bar