A PRIMARY school head teacher who was sacked after the “alteration” of SATs exams papers has won an unfair dismissal claim - as an employment judge blasted the investigation into her conduct as “prejudicial” and “one-sided”.

Sue Wade was dismissed from Wargrave Primary School in Newton-le-Willows on June 27, 2016 following an investigation into the “maladministration” of Key Stage 2 mental arithmetic SATs tests.

She also lost an appeal against the decision in October 2016.

However, following a tribunal, Judge Tobias Vincent Ryan dismissed charges against her, ruling Mrs Wade was “both unfairly and wrongfully dismissed” - calling the investigation “prejudicial”, saying she had been “singled out for suspicion”.

Other allegations the judge found not proven against Mrs Wade included misleading governors about school performance; failing to follow STA guidance; “unprofessional and unethical conduct with regard to the accuracy of assessment data” and falsification of documents regarding her attendance at work on 10 dates.

She had also been accused of “unprofessional and unethical conduct with regard to recording work in children’s books” by instructing a teacher to mis-record the date of a trip to the World of Glass and of “bringing Wargrave into disrepute” in light of the “maladministration” allegation.

The tribunal heard that on May 13, 2015, 28 year six pupils took a maths SATs exam at the school.

On marking, 53 “amendments or corrections” to 18 of the papers, were detected, which were “patent and obvious”.

The papers were in Mrs Wade’s office “with the claimant on her own for between five and 45 minutes.” She claimed giving the papers to another member of staff was her “last involvement ”.

Judge Ryan said the investigation "gives every appearance of being pre-judged and prejudicial to the claimant, seeking to obtain condemnatory evidence against her”.

He added “witnesses were asked leading questions” and the panel’s interviews and reinterviews are “suggestive of building a case against the claimant as opposed to being an impartial and objective consideration of events”.

The judge ruled “it has not been proven, on the balance of probabilities to my satisfaction that the claimant altered the year six SATs papers” and found her to be “clear, cogent and credible in her denial of any maladministration”.

On an alleged failure to follow STA guidance, the judge said although “not ideal” to store test papers in the head teacher’s office, he accepted that due to lack of space this was “the least bad option” and it has not been established that any failures "amounted to gross misconduct”.

There was “no specific, concrete, attributable evidence” that Mrs Wade had manipulated or falsified final assessments and that “the claimant did not instruct a member of staff to mis-record the World of Glass event in her class’ books”.

On alleged misleading of governors, the judge stated that although “by her nature” Mrs Wade had “tended to put a positive spin on Wargrave’s performance”, he had no evidence of reports being "falsified or manipulated or that the claimant lied to the governors”.

It was also found “there was no evidence” that Mrs Wade had changed 10 attendance sheets between January 204 and December 2015.

He added: “In view of my findings above the claimant cannot have brought Wargrave into disrepute”.

The judge concluded the disciplinary and appeal panels had “genuinely believed the claimant was guilty but they did so on the basis of a flawed report, presented in prejudicial circumstances that identified (Mrs Wade) as the guilty party from the outset.”

After the tribunal, Mrs Wade said: “It has been a difficult few years. I loved my job as head teacher of Wargrave and still miss the children.

“I am thrilled my name has finally been cleared and it has been confirmed that I was both unfairly and wrongfully dismissed.

“I will always be grateful to my family, friends and colleagues for their unfailing support. I am looking forward to finding some way to resume my career in education.”

A St Helens Council spokesman said the authority could not comment on the matter because legal proceedings have not yet been concluded, with a remedy hearing due to take place.