Mr Haye, a Seventh Day Adventist, was employed in 2007 by a school with pupils of diverse religions and beliefs at which the ethos was one of promoting tolerance and respect for the beliefs and rights of others. In 2010, after an assembly at which a video on homosexuality was shown, a pupil asked him for his views as a Christian on homosexuality and he answered with reference to the Bible. Some days later, when asked by another pupil whether he believed that people who attended church on Sundays worshipped the devil, he again answered with reference to the Bible. Both incidents were overheard and reported and were investigated by the school. Mr Haye was dismissed and the matter referred to the General Teaching Council for England. The Council's investigating panel found that Mr Haye's conduct had fallen significantly below the expected standard and imposed a prohibition order with a two-year minimum review period – not because of Mr Haye's beliefs but because of his lack of insight about the inappropriateness of his comments. Before the Administrative Court Mr Haye argued that, given his good work record, the prohibition order was unreasonable, unfair and disproportionate: he had not instigated the discussions at issue and there was no evidence that his comments had had any direct detrimental effect. Moreover, the penalty breached his rights under Article 9 ECHR (thought, conscience and religion).

King J dismissed the application. Even though there was no evidence that Mr Haye's comments had had any detrimental effect, what mattered was their potential to do so. They had been insensitive and potentially offensive, and the panel's finding that they had been likely to undermine the ethos and values of the school was justified. Mr Haye was expected to promote tolerance for the rights and beliefs of others, but his comments had encouraged his pupils to be intolerant of homosexuality and of those who attended church on Sundays. The case was not about Mr Haye's right to hold his own beliefs but about how he had manifested those beliefs in a school with a diverse intake. The prohibition order was a proportionate response to the need to protect the public's expectations of teachers and it did not violate Mr Haye's Article 9 rights. [Frank Cranmer]