Miss Bethany Woodcock

Teacher's name: Miss Bethany Woodcock

Teacher reference number: 1174270

Teacher's date of birth: 04 November 1993

Location teacher worked: Lancashire, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 to 28 June 2023

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Miss Bethany Woodcock, formerly employed in Wiltshire, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Miss Bethany Woodcock: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Bethany Woodcock Teacher ref number: 1174270 Teacher date of birth: 04/11/1993 TRA reference: 0020851 Date of determination: 28 June 2023 Former employer: Hollingworth Learning Trust at Newhouse Academy, Heywood Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 27 to 28 June 2023 by virtual means to consider the case of Miss Bethany Woodcock. The panel members were Mr Neil Hillman (teacher panellist - in the chair), Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist) and Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Miss Woodcock was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 17 April 2023. It was alleged that Miss Woodcock was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Maths Teacher in Newhouse Academy: 1. Between September and November 2021, she engaged in over-familiar and/or inappropriate communications via email with Pupil A; 2. Between September and October 2021, on one or more occasions she hugged Pupil A; 3. Between September and November 2021, she failed to report safeguarding concerns in relation to comments made by Pupil A to her including: a. Pupil A’s feeling towards to her; b. Pupil A’s disclosure to her in relation to [REDACTED] In response to the notice of referral form, Miss Woodcock admitted allegations 1 and 3 but denied allegation 2. Miss Woodcock admitted that, in respect of those alleged facts, she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Miss Woodcock did not respond to the notice of hearing and the panel therefore treated the allegations as not admitted. Preliminary applications Application to admit late documents 1. The presenting officer applied to admit a bundle of service documents. Those documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.35 of the Procedures, and as such the panel is required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer to the admission of the documents. This application was heard prior to hearing any application on proceeding in the absence of the teacher , since the admission of the documents would be relevant to the determination of that application. 2. Under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. 5 3. The panel was satisfied that the documents were relevant to the case in so far as they set out the correspondence between the TRA’s representatives and the teacher. 4. With regard to the overall question of fairness, the panel’s attention was drawn to the fact that the correspondence bundle contained documents to which the teacher was party. Given the absence of the teacher at this stage, the panel considered whether she had received the documents. The panel noted that one document showed the teacher responding with a Notice of Referral Form and the panel further noted that she had accessed the documents. 5. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit each of the documents and these should be paginated as set out in the service bundle. Any express reference to documents in the service bundle shall be referred to as the “Service Bundle”. Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. 6 i) On the last occasion that contact was established with Miss Woodcock on 16 January 2023, she provided the TRA representatives with a copy of the Notice of Referral Form. Further correspondence from the TRA representative was sent to Miss Woodcock’s email address however no responses were received. ii) The panel noted that Miss Woodcock was later contacted by the TRA representative on 22 May 2023 using the same email address. The correspondence stated the hearing date. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place and had waived her right to be present at the hearing. iii) Miss Woodcock’s Notice of Referral Form indicated that she admitted the allegations and that the facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Miss Woodcock also indicated that she wanted these allegations to be considered without a hearing. However, as within the same document, she later contested one of the allegations, it was decided that a public hearing was required. iv) The panel considered it unlikely that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily. v) At the stage of the panel’s considerations, it was unclear how long any such adjournment would be required to obtain Miss Woodcock’s engagement with the hearing. vi) The panel noted that Miss Woodcock was not represented and the panel had not received any correspondence or application from Miss Woodcock to adjourn the hearing to obtain legal representation. vii) The panel noted that the witness whose evidence is relied upon by the TRA was to be called to give evidence and the panel was able to test that evidence in questioning that witness, and also consider such points as are favourable to Miss Woodcock. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. viii) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. ix) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers was required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. 7 x) The panel also noted that there was one witness present at the hearing, who was prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for them to return again. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel recognised that the teacher waived her right to appear and determined that, by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible, and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses, that on balance, that there was a public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time. Given the seriousness of the allegations the panel was therefore in favour of the hearing continuing as scheduled. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and List of key people – pages 7 to 8 and 10 Section 2: Notice of proceedings – pages 11 to 15 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 17 to 23 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 24 to 317 Placeholders were provided for the Anonymised Pupil List and response to notice of hearing. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the Service Bundle consisting of 31 pages. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: • Witness A, [REDACTED] The witness was called by the presenting officer. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: 8 The panel careful