Decisions such as the issuing or suspension of professional warrants are administrative acts; consequently, when a member of the public does not agree with an administrative act issued by the government of Malta, the aggrieved party may file an application for the review of the said administrative act before the Administrative Review Tribunal.
Applications from teachers seeking to obtain a warrant to practise the teaching profession in Malta are received by the Council for the Teaching Profession, which in turn makes its recommendation to the Minister for Education for the issue or otherwise of a teaching warrant.
Not every person may obtain a warrant to join the teaching profession. Among the requirements set out in the Education Act, one finds that persons convicted of a crime liable to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year, persons having abused students’ trust and having used violence in students’ regard are not eligible to obtain a warrant.
Moreover, the council is given a degree of discretion in deciding the faith of persons who have been convicted of any crime. The council’s opinion of a convicted person on whether such person is fit to practise the teaching profession in a school is also recognised in the law, thus the council’s discretion may result in a teacher losing their warrant or for their application to be dismissed in the first place.
Teaching, practising the teaching profession or carrying out any educational practice without a warrant (or temporary warrant) is considered an offence which on conviction results in a person to be liable to a maximum fine of €1,164.69 and/or three months’ imprisonment and to the daily fine of €11.65 for each day that the offence continues (until a maximum of €4,658.75).
John Borg* was a warranted teacher when he was found guilty of violent indecent assault against a minor by the Court of Magistrates as a court of criminal judicature (Gozo) back in 2017. He was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for three years.
The council had considered that due to the nature and circumstances of the offence committed, Borg was no longer qualified to hold a permanent teacher’s warrant and thus, his warrant was suspended.
Following the lapse of the three-year period of his suspended sentence, Borg applied to have his warrant reinstated. The council recommended that the teacher’s application be refused and subsequently, the council’s recommendation was confirmed by the Minister for Education.
Teaching, practising the teaching profession or carrying out any educational practice without a warrant (or temporary warrant) is considered an offence
The council based its decision on article 30 (1) (a) of the Education Act, which states that a person shall not be qualified to retain a warrant if such person has been convicted by any court of criminal jurisdiction for any crime liable to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. The council further argued that a person must be of good conduct to qualify for the said teaching warrant and thus according to it, the applicant in this case did not qualify.
Borg argued that the council’s reasoning was incorrect. Clinging onto a chance at redemption and the possibility of being reinstated to the teaching profession, he filed an application before the Administrative Review Tribunal to declare that the council’s decision not to reintegrate his teaching warrant was null and ineffective. To no surprise, the council objected to the appeal, and defended its recommendation to the minister regarding this teacher’s warrant.
When contemplating the loss of a warrant for teaching, the tribunal gave more weight to the penalty linked to the crime which the teacher was found guilty of and gave little importance to the penalty awarded to the teacher. This means that had the maximum punishment been seven years at the time, the tribunal, for the purposes of a decision based on the facts it had before it, would have considered seven as the number of years for which the teacher was imprisoned, and not the actual punishment awarded.
The tribunal considered that Borg’s sentencing to one year imprisonment (albeit it being suspended by three years, thus resulting in him not actually spending a day in prison), was, at the time, the maximum he could be punished. Consequently, article 30(1)(a) could not be considered to be applicable to this case since it referred to crimes liable to a term exceeding one year. Based on such, the teacher was correct in challenging the council’s decision.
The tribunal considered that the requisites for one to be eligible for a teacher’s warrant, including that of having good conduct, should be present throughout a teacher’s career and not simply upon submitting the application to obtain the warrant.
When testifying, the council’s representative emphasised that the council did not simply base its decision on sub-article ‘a’ as indicated above, however, it considered all of article 30, including the one giving weight to the council’s opinion on a person being fit to practise the teaching profession.
The witness testifying on behalf of the council made it clear that the council did not consider Borg to be fit to practise the teaching profession and stated that had Borg breached the code of ethics other than be found guilty of this crime, the council would have still reached the same conclusion and recommended against the reinstatement of the teacher’s warrant. In other words, as long as the council was making the recommendation, Borg’s dream would remain so.
The council representative’s testimony convinced the tribunal that the decision was not solely based on article 30(1)(a) and so the tribunal dismissed the teacher’s application and left Borg without his warrant.
This judgment was delivered by the Administrative Review Tribunal on August 9 (RK Nru 10/2020 SG) John Borg* v Kunsill Dwar il-Professjoni tal-Għalliema f’Malta and has to date not been appealed.
*for the purposes of this article a fictitious name is being used for the applicant.
Rebecca Mercieca is an associate at Azzopardi, Borg & Associates Advocates.