Assistant principal dismissed for restraining a pupil: no training and a flawed process
An assistant principal with seven years' service was unfairly dismissed after physically restraining a disruptive student. The school had not provided positive handling training and failed to preserve full CCTV evidence.
1 min read · Last updated 18 May 2026
Case details
- #physical-restraint
- #student-behaviour
- #cctv-evidence
- #lack-of-training
- #procedural-unfairness
- #acas-code-uplift
Key facts
- The claimant was dismissed for gross misconduct after physically restraining a disruptive student.
- The claimant had not received positive handling training despite the respondent's policy requiring it.
- The respondent failed to preserve all relevant CCTV footage, only keeping a 64-second clip.
- The disciplinary panel did not consider the claimant's unblemished record or other mitigating factors.
- The appeal panel considered the claimant's lack of remorse, which was not part of the gross misconduct allegation.
Timeline
-
Employment start
Claimant commenced employment as Assistant Principal at Goodwin Academy.
-
Incident with Student A
Claimant physically restrained Student A after she became disruptive. CCTV footage captured part of the incident.
-
Investigation begins
School started investigation and referred incident to police and local authority.
-
Police and LA take no further action
Police and local authority confirmed no further action; no safeguarding issues.
-
Disciplinary proceedings start
Claimant informed that disciplinary proceedings had begun.
-
Investigation report concludes
Investigating officer found a case to answer on four allegations, with some sub-allegations not upheld.
-
Disciplinary hearing
Disciplinary panel chaired by Mrs Murphy heard the case; all four allegations presented as fully substantiated.
-
Dismissal without notice
Claimant dismissed without notice for gross misconduct.
-
Appeal hearing
Appeal panel chaired by Mr Gardener heard the appeal; not a re-hearing.
-
Appeal outcome
Appeal upheld dismissal but changed to dismissal with notice; only allegation 2 (inappropriate physical contact) upheld as gross misconduct.
-
Employment ends
Claimant's employment ended after notice period.
The legal issue
The tribunal had to decide whether the school acted reasonably in dismissing the assistant principal for gross misconduct after he physically restrained a student, and whether the disciplinary process was fair overall.
The outcome
The tribunal ruled that the assistant principal was unfairly dismissed. The school's decision fell outside the range of reasonable responses because:
- The assistant principal had not received positive handling training despite the school's own policy requiring it.
- The school only kept a 64-second clip of CCTV footage, failing to preserve the full incident.
- The disciplinary panel did not consider his unblemished 7-year record or other mitigating factors.
- The appeal panel considered his lack of remorse, which was not part of the original gross misconduct allegation.
Compensation will be determined at a separate remedy hearing.
Lessons & takeaways
- Employers must provide staff with any training required by their own policies before disciplining them for failing to follow procedures.
- Failing to preserve all relevant evidence, such as full CCTV footage, can undermine the fairness of a disciplinary process.
- Disciplinary panels should explicitly consider an employee's length of service and clean record when deciding whether dismissal is appropriate.
- Appeal hearings that introduce new grounds for upholding a dismissal (like lack of remorse) risk being seen as procedurally unfair.
What this case shows in practice
This case highlights the risks schools and other employers face when they discipline staff for actions taken in difficult, fast-moving situations — especially when the employer has not provided the necessary training. The assistant principal had worked at the school for seven years without any conduct issues. When a student became disruptive, he physically restrained her. The school dismissed him for gross misconduct, but the tribunal found the process was fundamentally flawed.
The school's own policy required positive handling training for staff who might need to restrain students. The assistant principal had not received this training. Yet the school expected him to know how to handle the situation correctly. The tribunal also noted that the school only preserved a 64-second clip of CCTV footage, rather than the full incident, and that the disciplinary panel did not consider his clean record or other mitigating factors.
What the school could have done differently
The school could have avoided this outcome by following its own policies. Providing the required training would have been a basic step. Preserving all relevant CCTV evidence would have allowed a fuller picture of the incident. The disciplinary panel should have explicitly weighed the assistant principal's long service and unblemished record, and considered whether a lesser sanction was appropriate. The appeal panel should not have introduced a new factor — lack of remorse — that was not part of the original allegation.
Why this result matters for similar claims
For employees in education or other sectors where physical intervention may be necessary, this case confirms that employers cannot impose standards they have not trained staff to meet. It also reinforces the importance of a fair process: preserving evidence, considering mitigation, and not shifting goalposts on appeal. Employees who are dismissed after using reasonable force in an emergency may have strong unfair dismissal claims if their employer failed to train them properly or conducted a one-sided investigation.
Similar cases
Dismissed without a disciplinary hearing: procedural unfairness costs employer £9,500
A former employee with two years' service was unfairly dismissed after being suspended and then sacked without any disciplinary hearing. The Cambridge tribunal awarded £9,546.81 in compensation.
Depot manager dismissed over four-year-old theft allegation without a hearing
A depot manager with 18 years' service was unfairly dismissed after his employer relied on a stale theft allegation and denied him the chance to respond. The tribunal awarded £22,000.
Regional Sales Manager unfairly dismissed for using word 'spastic' in historical context
A Regional Sales Manager with three years' service was unfairly dismissed after using the word 'spastic' in a conversation about historical language. The tribunal awarded £7,710.31 for procedural failures including a pre-signed dismissal letter.
Dismissed for mishearing an instruction: a conduct case that failed to consider the possibility of misunderstanding
A purge and relight engineer with five years' service was unfairly dismissed after a dispute over whether he was told to return to a work site. The tribunal found the employer failed to consider the possibility of miscommunication and did not interview a key witness.