Superhead Greg Wallace has won a High Court appeal against his ban from teaching over allegations of financial mismanagement and conflicts of interest involving £1 million worth of IT contracts.

A senior judge ruled that a “less intrusive measure” than a ban could and should have been adopted against Mr Wallace, the former executive headteacher of the Best Start Federation of schools in Hackney, East London, because of the public interest in maintaining his “exceptional contribution to education”.

Mr Wallace was barred for a minimum of two years after the Department for Education overruled a recommendation from the National College for Teaching and Leadership (NCTL) that a ban should not be imposed because of his “inspirational example” as an educator.

An NCTL professional conduct panel had heard that Mr Wallace conspired to award contracts worth more than £1 million, without seeking approval from school governors, to a firm owned by a friend and partner, and then attempted to cover up evidence by deleting emails.

The NCTL panel also heard that Mr Wallace received payments from the firm, including one of £4,000.

Greg Wallace a victim of ‘an element of duress’

Recommending that no ban be imposed, the panel said Mr Wallace was a victim of “an element of duress brought about by a combination of his own natural enthusiasm and others outside of the federation encouraging him to take on responsibility for more schools in order to address poor achievement levels in the local area”.

Mr Wallace, the panel suggested, was overburdened by “the breadth of responsibility on his shoulders”. It added that “an apparent lack of supporting infrastructure appeared to impact on his attention to the detail of some procedural requirements”.

But the DfE decided the panel had not taken “sufficient account of the public concern that would arise, and that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened, if the conduct found proved in this case was not treated with the utmost seriousness”.

In 2012, Mr Wallace was praised in a speech by then education secretary Michael Gove as a “magnificent” academy head running outstanding schools in deprived areas.

Two years later, he was dismissed by Hackney council following an investigation into the awarding of the computer contracts to C2 Technology.

Mr Wallace went to the High Court to make a statutory appeal against the education secretary’s insistence on a teaching ban.

He won his case in a ruling handed down in Birmingham by Mr Justice Holgate today.

Forced to quit advisory panel

The disgraced head was forced to quit a government maths advisory panel run by the DfE and the National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics.

Mr Justice Holgate described how, between July 1999 and March 2004, he had been the company secretary of a specialist ICT company, C2 Technology Limited (C2).

The judge said: “The appellant was in a sexual relationship with TZ, the director of that company, prior to 2008, thereafter they remained friends until 2012 - going on holidays together, and from 2012 onwards they were in a sexual relationship again.”

Mr Wallace was also involved with TZ through a business called Effective Marketing, an internet service to which teachers and schools could subscribe for a fee.

Describing how Mr Wallace had achieved “superhead” status, the judge said in 2007 the London Fields Primary School was placed in special measures because of poor performance and the governing body was removed.

In 2008, Mr Wallace was the headteacher of Woodberry Down Primary School. On July 25, 2008 the two schools formed a federation known as the Best Start Federation (BSF).

Mr Wallace became BSF executive principal. His role with the technology company C2 and his relationship with TZ were not disclosed by him to the BSF during the relevant period, said the judge.

Between June 2009 and September 2011, three other primary schools - Mandeville, Whitmore and Burbage - joined the BSF.

The judge said: “By this stage the appellant had become a ‘superhead’ with a considerable reputation for successfully raising standards in failing schools.

“He was seen as an inspirational educator, both for his pupils and his colleagues. Plainly, he was in a very influential position.”

The five schools in the BSF paid to C2 between them sums totalling £1.073 million over the period 2008-13.

In 2013, one particular invoice was picked up in an internal audit by the London Borough of Hackney, the local education authority. On 16 April, 2013, the council’s audit and anti-fraud division (AAFD) visited the five schools and removed documents relating to their finances.

C2 controlled access to the email accounts of the schools’ staff and governors. The company denied AAFD access to those emails.

The judge said, on 17 April 2013, Wallace contacted TZ who helped him to “clear down” email accounts in order to avoid emails being seen at that stage by the AAFD.

In June 2013, he was interviewed by the AAFD. A month later he was suspended and told not to access his email account.

“He did, however, access that account and delete emails,” said the judge.

But further investigations revealed the relationship between Mr Wallace and TZ, “and the way in which the appellant had assisted TZ and C2 to win service level agreements from the BSF schools in preference to a former contractor”.

Teaching ban ‘disproportionate’

Allowing Mr Wallace’s appeal against his teaching ban, the judge ruled it “disproportionate”.

The judge said a “combination of exceptional features” meant the court should deal with the case instead of sending it back for a rehearing.

Although some of Mr Wallace’s conduct “would be regarded objectively as dishonest, all of the allegations of dishonesty failed because there was no subjective dishonesty on the part of the appellant himself”.

The misconduct itself, although very serious, “fell at the lower end of the scale of severity which might justify a prohibition order”, said the judge.

The education secretary had failed to show how a teaching ban of at least two years could serve any useful purpose, given that Mr Wallace had shown “great insight” into his misconduct.

The judge observed that “the formal publication of the findings of misconduct, with the detrimental effects they are likely to have on the appellant’s career, represents a ‘less intrusive measure’ which could and should have been adopted by the [education secretary]”.

That course satisfied “the public interest in maintaining the appellant’s exceptional contribution to education” without ”‘unacceptably compromising’ the maintenance of public confidence in the teaching profession.”

Want to keep up with the latest education news and opinion? Follow TES on Twitter and like TES on Facebook