Miss Camilla Hannan

Teacher's name: Miss Camilla Hannan

Teacher reference number: 9207045

Teacher's date of birth: 23 August 1969

Location teacher worked: Manchester, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 September 2024

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 Camilla Hannan formerly employed in Manchester, North 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 Camilla Hannan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Camilla Hannan Teacher ref number: 9207045 Teacher date of birth: 23 August 1969 TRA reference: 22353 Date of determination: 9 September 2024 Former employer: [REDACTED] Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 September 2024 via virtual means, to consider the case of Miss Camilla Hannan. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Maxine Cole (lay panellist) and Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Charlotte Watts of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Miss Hannan was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 13 June 2024. It was alleged that Miss Hannan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. She engaged in offensive and/or trans-phobic dialogue on social media by posting; a. Where I teach we have gender identity policy *roll eyes emoji* it’s a load of nonsensical rubbish, as you’d imagine…; b. I teach a [REDACTED] who has changed [REDACTED] pronouns to [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] name to [Pupil A]. I worry about what the next steps will be; c. Where I teach the trans kids are untouchable. They get everything they ask for and everyone staff and other students alike, is petrified of upsetting them. They don’t seem oppressed to me more like oppressors tbh; d. One of my [REDACTED] students is on [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] has become quite hyperactive and emotionally up and down. I worry for [REDACTED]; e. The autistic/ASD [REDACTED] I teach are all plastered with trans flags and badges, without exception. 2. In behaving as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above she demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. In a statement of agreed facts signed by Miss Hannan on 25 August 2024, Miss Hannan admitted all of the allegations. Miss Hannan also admitted that her conduct in respect of the allegations which are admitted, amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). 5 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, updated May 2020 (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 [2003] 1 AC1 that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is 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. i) The panel was satisfied that the teacher had received the notice of proceedings dated 13 June 2024. In particular, the panel had sight of a statement of agreed facts signed by the teacher on 25 August 2024. The panel also had sight of email correspondence between the TRA and the teacher’s union representative, in which the teacher’s union representative confirmed that the teacher was “not seeking a postponement” and “would rather that the matter is decided as quickly as possible”. The email also confirmed that the teacher understood that if the matter did not proceed as a meeting, then a hearing would proceed in her absence and without a representative being present. The panel therefore considered that the teacher waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing took place; ii) An adjournment would not result in the teacher attending voluntarily; iii) The panel noted that it had the benefit of written representations provided by the teacher within the evidence bundle, and was able to ascertain the teacher’s position and lines of defence. The panel also had sight of the teacher’s evidence addressing mitigation and noted that it was able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel also noted that all witnesses relied upon were to be called to give evidence and the panel would be able to test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as were favourable to the teacher, as was reasonably available on the evidence. The 6 panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and noted that should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel would be able to take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available, and in considering whether the presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof. 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; iv) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there would be 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; v) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at the [REDACTED] (“the School”). The panel noted that the School would have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards; and vi) 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 considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of her right to appear; 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 witness; that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing as listed. Excluding the public The presenting officer made an application for the hearing to be in private. The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Regulations and paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(a) of the Regulations and the first bullet point of paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. 7 The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request for the hearing to be heard in private was a reasonable one. In particular, the panel took into account the concerns raised by the School, which were that by the very nature of the allegations, a public hearing would result in Pupil A being identifiable in the public domain. The panel noted that the case concerned sensitive matters involving a transgender pupil, and public social media posts about that pupil that were allegedly transphobic. The School stated that given that there are a very small number of pupils that identify as transgender at the School, there would be no doubt as to the identity of Pupil A by reference to the School during a public hearing. The School also raised concerns that the allegations raise potentially negative connotations about the trans community, which it would not want associated with the pupil in question, given the potential consequences for them. The School also raised conce rns that a public hearing would severely compromise the pupil’s right to privacy and would have a significant adverse impact on the pupil and their family. The panel noted that neither the TRA nor the teacher had any objections to the hearing proceeding in private. The panel considered that the request for the hearing to be heard in private was a reasonable one given the sensitive nature of the allegations and concerns about Pupil A’s identity being in the public domain. The panel considered whether there were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the identity of the pupil concerned, but considered that the sensitive matters were so intertwined with the facts of the case, it would not be practicable to exclude the public from parts of the hearing only. The panel considered whether it would sufficiently protect the interests of third parties to grant anonymity to those third parties without the need to exclude the public from the hearing. The panel was not satisfied that this would be a sufficient or practical step, given that the pupil would be easily identified by reference to all the different aspects of the case (such as the witness giving oral evidence, and the name of the School). The panel had regard to whether the application ran contrary to the public interest. The panel noted that it was required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount ed to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the case was to continue, the panel also noted that any decision of the Secretary of State would be announced in public. The panel considered that in the circumsta nces of this 8 case, where the facts are so intertwined with sensitive matters relating to Pupil A, the public interest would be satisfied by these public announcements. Those public announcements would ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. The panel agreed to exclude the public from the entire hearing. Admitting a late document The presenting officer applied to admit one document. That document was not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.36 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer, and the objections raised by an organisation on behalf of the teacher to the admission of the documents. The panel used caution in exercising this discretion given that it had determined to proceed with this hearing in the absence of the teacher. Under paragraph 5.34 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. The panel was satisfied that the document was relevant to the case. In particular, the document contained screenshots of the social media posts that were the subject of the allegations. With regard to the question of fairness, the panel concluded that it would be fair to admit the evidence. The panel noted that this was not a new document, and that the teacher had already been shown this document previously during the investigation stage. Given the absence of the teacher, the panel also considered whether she had received the document and had sufficient opportunities to make representations about it. The panel noted that the teacher had only recently raised objections to the document being admitted in full, via an external organisation, which were sent in an email to the presenting officer. In particular, the panel noted that the document contained screenshots of social media posts made by the teacher that were not referred to in the allegations, and that the teacher had requested that these posts were redacted and not admitted as evidence. However, the panel considered that all of the social media posts, including the additional posts that were not directly referred to in the allegations, were relevant to the allegations as they provided the panel with useful context. The panel did not find that including these additional social media posts was prejudicial to the teacher. Therefore, the panel concluded that it was fair to admit the entire document, without redactions. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the document. 9 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Preliminary documents – pages 5 to 9 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 11 to 24 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 26 to 32 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 34 to 156 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 158 to 202 The panel also received the following documents, in advance of the hearing, which were provided separately to the hearing bundle: • The second witness statement of Witness A dated 7 July 2021, which was added to the bundle at pages 203 to 206; • A letter from Miss Hannan’s GP dated 19 August 2024, which was added to the bundle at page 207; • A signed statement of agreed facts dated 25 August 2024, which was added to the bundle at pages 208 to 210; and • Correspondence between the presenting officer and Miss Hannan’s union representative dated 30 August 2024 and 4 September 2024, which was added to the bundle at pages 211 to 213. In addition, the panel also agreed to accept the following document as a late document: • A document containing screenshots of tweets, which was added to the bundle at pages 214 to 235. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, the additional documents that were provided separately (listed above), and the additional document that the panel decided to admit, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness, called by the TRA: • Witness A - [REDACTED] 10 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 1 September 2001, Miss Hannan commenced employment at [REDACTED] (“the School”), as a [REDACTED]. Miss Hannan also became a [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] at the School. In May 2023, it was brought to the School’s attention by a whistle-blower that Miss Hannan had been making tweets via the Twitter app (now known as “X”), between [REDACTED]. The School commenced an investigation. On 5 June 2023, Miss Hannan attended a meeting at the School. On 8 June 2023, Miss Hannan resigned from her position at the School. On 19 June 2023, a disciplinary hearing took place and it was decided that Miss Hannan would have been dismissed but for her resignation. On 25 July 2023, Miss Hannan was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You engaged in offensive and/or trans-phobic dialogue on social media by posting; a. Where I teach we have gender identity policy *roll eyes emoji* it’s a load of nonsensical rubbish, as you’d imagine…; b. I teach a [REDACTED] who has changed [REDACTED] pronouns to [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] name to [Pupil A]. I worry about what the next steps will be; c. Where I teach the trans kids are untouchable. They get everything they ask for and everyone staff and other students alike, is petrified of upsetting them. They don’t seem oppressed to me more like oppressors tbh; d. One of my [REDACTED] students is on [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] has become quite hyperactive and emotionally up and down. I worry for [REDACTED]; 11 e. The autistic/ASD [REDACTED] I teach are all plastered with trans flags and badges without exception. This allegation was admitted by Miss Hannan, in a statement of agreed facts, that she signed on 25 August 2024. The panel had sight of screenshots in the bundle, of the public posts made via X, which included the following posts: • A post dated [REDACTED], which stated: “Where I teach we have a gender identity policy *rolls eyes emoji* it’s a load of nonsensical rubbish, as you’d imagine…”; • A post dated [REDACTED], which stated: “I teach a [REDACTED] who has changed [REDACTED] pronouns to [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] name to [Pupil A]. I worry about what the next step will be”; • A post dated [REDACTED], which stated: “Where I teach the trans kids are untouchable. They get everything they ask for and everyone, staff and other students alike, is petrified of upsetting them. They really don’t seem very oppressed to me. More like oppressors tbh.”; • A post dated [REDACTED], which stated: “One of my [REDACTED] students is on [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] has become quite hyperactive and emotionally very up and down. I worry for [REDACTED] *crying face emoji*”; and • A post dated [REDACTED], which stated: “The autistic/ASD [REDACTED] I teach are all plastered with trans flag badges, without exception.” The panel noted that it was not initially clear from the name used for the social media account whether or not this account belonged to Miss Hannan. The panel also noted that these posts had been drawn to the School’s attention by a whistleblower from another school, who had been able to recognise that the posts were made by Miss Hannan as a result of an older and un-related post which revealed her surname. The panel also noted that Miss Hannan had accepted during the School’s investigation that she had made these posts, when she was presented with the screenshots at an investigation meeting on 5 June 2023. Miss Hannan had also accepted as part of her written evidence in the bundle, and in the signed statement of agreed facts that she made these posts from her own social media account. Having found that Miss Hannan did make the social media posts referred to as part of the allegation, the panel went on to consider whether or not whether the posts were offensive and/or transphobic. The panel found that Miss Hannan’s posts were offensive. In particular, the panel found that the dismissive nature of the language used, in particular the use of the “eye roll” emoji to dismiss the School’s gender identity policy was offensive to those whom the 12 policy was in place to protect. The panel also noted that Miss Hannan’s comments, such as calling the policy “non-sensical rubbish” was offensive. The panel also found that Miss Hannan’s comments were dismissive of pupils, particularly Pupil A, and that Miss Hannan was belittling the emotional upheaval that they were experiencing. The panel also noted that Miss Hannan had repeatedly misgendered the pupil, believed to be Pupil A, on more than one occasion and found that this was clearly offensive and transphobic. The panel also noted that one of the posts made by Miss Hannan, referred to at Allegation 1(e), made an implication that if a pupil was diagnosed with ASD or autism, then they were not capable of understanding the concept of gender identity. The panel found this comment to be offensive and transphobic. The panel also noted that upon becoming aware of the social media posts, Pupil A felt angry, disappointed and upset, and that their [REDACTED] also felt betrayed. The panel found that betraying a pupil’s trust in such a way was deeply offensive. Overall, the panel found Allegation 1 to be proven in its entirety. 2. In behaving as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above you demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. This allegation was admitted by Miss Hannan, in a statement of agreed facts, that she signed on 25 August 2024. The panel found that Miss Hannan in making public comments on social media, as set out at Allegation 1, demonstrated a lack of respect for the rights of pupils. The panel also found that Miss Hannan specifically demonstrated a lack of respect for Pupil A, by “outing” them on social media. The panel also found that Miss Hannan’s dismissive language when referring to the School’s gender identity policy, and also when referring to Pupil A’s desire to change their pronouns, constituted a lack of tolerance towar ds Pupil A and also other pupils at whom the gender identity policy was aimed. The panel heard evidence from Witness A , that staff would receive safeguarding training and would also be sent emails to remind them each year to read the School’s policies, including the School’s gender identity policy. The panel heard from Witness A that Miss Hannan would have received this email and would have been aware of this policy (which is also demonstrated by Miss Hannan’s post on social media, referring to the policy). The panel also heard from Witness A that staff at the School would have received training that would have focused on the Equality Act, and the importance of being tolerant and respectful of others’ rights and beliefs. The panel found Miss Hannan’s deliberate disregard for these policies to be a blatant lack of respect for others, particularly pupils at the School, and Pupil A. 13 The panel also found Miss Hannan repeatedly misgendering a pupil, thought to be Pupil A, displayed a significant lack of respect for Pupil A’s rights. The panel found this allegation proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Hannan, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Miss Hannan was in breach of the following standards: Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs o ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach … Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Hannan, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). In particular, the panel found that Miss Hannan failed to adhere to her safeguarding responsibilities and failed to safeguard and promote the welfare of Pupil A by “outing” Pupil A via public posts on social media. 14 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Hannan fell significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. The panel also considered whether Miss Hannan’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that the offence of intolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or any of the other protected characteristics was relevant. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel noted that the allegations took place outside the education setting. The panel found that the social media posts made by Miss Hannan did expose Pupil A to her behaviour in a harmful way. In particular, Miss Hannan had revealed the identity of Pupil A via social media, and had also revealed sensitive medical information about Pupil A, and that this potentially exposed Pupil A to the risk of bullying and hate crime from others. The panel also found that the conduct affected the way in which Miss Hannan fulfilled her teaching role, as she had clearly betrayed the trust and confidence of a pupil at the School in which she taught. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Miss Hannan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others, the responsibilities and duties of teachers in relation to the safeguarding and welfare of pupils and considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel also considered whether Miss Hannan’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that the offence of intolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or any of the other protected characteristics was relevant. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. The panel considered that Miss Hannan’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. 15 The panel therefore found that Miss Hannan’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Having found the facts of particulars 1 and 2 proved, the panel further found that Miss Hannan’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Miss Hannan and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the protection of other members of the public, and the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There was a strong public interest consideration in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings against Miss Hannan which involved finding that she had made offensive and transphobic posts on social media, which had “outed” Pupil A by name as a transgender pupil, and therefore revealed Pupil A’s sensitive medical information to the public. There was also a strong public interest consideration in the protection of other members of the public, given the findings of offensive and transphobic social media posts about transgender pupils and policies more generally. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Hannan were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Miss Hannan was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 16 Whilst there is evidence that Miss Hannan had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Miss Hannan in the profession, since her behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a panel will likely consider a teacher’s behaviour to be incompatible with being a teacher if there is evidence of one or more of the factors that begin on page 15. In the list of such factors, those that were relevant in this case were: o serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; o misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well- being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; o abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) o failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE) o violation of the rights of pupils; and o a deep-seated attitude that leads to harmful behaviour. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, taking account of the public interest and the seriousness of the behaviour and the likely harm to the public interest were the teacher be allowed to continue to teach, the panel went on to consider the mitigation offered by the teacher and/or whether there were mitigating circumstances. Miss Hannan’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Miss Hannan was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. The panel had sight of mitigation evidence in the bundle, which had been adduced by Miss Hannan. Firstly, the panel had sight of good character statements. The panel had sight of a statement submitted by a former colleague of Miss Hannan at the School (“Colleague A”), dated 22 July 2024. In this statement, Colleague A stated that Miss Hannan was “a conscientious teacher and effective classroom practitioner”. Colleague A also stated that Miss Hannan worked hard for her classes, and had “used 17 both her experience in examining and her excellent subject knowledge to give the students the best possible grounding” in the subjects that she taught. Colleague A also stated that Miss Hannan had good working relationships with students, and that the students appreciated her. The panel also had sight of another statement submitted by a friend and former colleague of Miss Hannan at the School (“Colleague B”), which was undated. In this statement, Colleague B stated that Miss Hannan worked in a “conscientious and compassionate” way with her students. Colleague B also stated that during overseas trips with students, Miss Hannan remained “calm, composed and always focused on the well-being of the students in her care”. Colleague B also described Miss Hannan as a “considerate, caring colleague who was most thoughtful of others and most supportive at all times”. The panel also had sight of a statement submitted by an unknown individual, which was undated, which described Miss Hannan as an “excellent teacher” who “enjoyed a particularly good rapport with [REDACTED] students who [held] her in high esteem”. The panel also had sight of cards and messages in the bundle to Miss Hannan from pupils, thanking her for being the “best ever” teacher and expressing thanks for her support. The panel accepted that Miss Hannan was a well-respected teacher at the School, and that she did have ability as a teacher. However, whilst there was evidence to demonstrate that Miss Hannan had a previously good record, the panel did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to show that Miss Hannan had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both her personal and professional conduct, and had contributed significantly to the broader education sector. The panel also had sight of a mitigation statement from Miss Hannan dated 12 August 2024. In this statement, Miss Hannan stated that she did “not bear trans people any malice or ill-will” and that she respected “their right to live as they please, and to ask others to refer to them by names and pronounces of their choice”. Miss Hannan also stated that she had concerns with the use of gender ideology in schools, which had “stemmed from a deep commitment to the safety and wellbeing of all the children” in her care. Miss Hannan also provided the panel with some context around her state of mind prior to and at the time of the incident. [REDACTED] Miss Hannan explained that, [REDACTED], she had been working very hard to run the Careers department, she was handling university applications, teaching her subjects to [REDACTED] students, and running an overseas trip. Miss Hannan stated that her workload had become unmanageable. [REDACTED]. Miss Hannan explained that as a result, she turned to social media to express some of her “pent-up frustration”, “anger” and “deep concern” with some of the leadership at the School and the policies that were introduced, which she realised was “poor judgment”. 18 Whilst the panel did take into account Miss Hannan’s representations carefully, the panel noted that ultimately these circumstances were not sufficient to justify her unacceptable behaviour. The panel also noted that Miss Hannan was an experienced teacher, she had received the necessary training from the School and was aware of the School’s policies, yet she fundamentally breached these policies and exposed Pupil A to a risk of serious harm. The panel took into account Miss Hannan’s level of insight and remorse. The panel noted that Miss Hannan accepted that she had made the posts on social media as soon as she was confronted by the School. The panel noted that she also apologised for these in her disciplinary interview, and stated that she deeply regretted “any upset or hurt” caused and “any potential harm which could have resulted from [her] actions”. The panel noted from Miss Hannan’s written representations in the bundle that she was remorseful for her behaviour. In particular, Miss Hannan stated that she felt “huge regret, shame, guilt and many other emotions”. However, the panel also noted that Miss Hannan’s remorse did appear to be somewhat self-serving. As an example, Miss Hannan stated in her written representations that she believed that she was posting on social media anonymously, and that she regrets that the measures taken were not sufficiently robust. The panel noted that this suggested that Miss Hannan’s remorse stemmed from being caught, rather than from reflections on her own behaviour. With regard to insight, the panel found that Miss Hannan did not appear to demonstrate a sufficient level of insight into her behaviour, and in particular, the impact it had on Pupil A, the public, and the School as a whole. The panel found that Miss Hannan appeared to be more concerned about the impact the incident had had on her own health and wellbeing. Proportionality The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Miss Hannan of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Miss Hannan. Miss Hannan’s deeply offensive and transphobic posts, which caused a serious risk to Pupil A, and also other pupils at the School who may have been in a similar position, were significant factors in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. 19 The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are cases involving certain conduct where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. One of these cases includes intolerance and/ or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or protected characteristics. The panel found that Miss Hannan was responsible for demonstrating a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights of others, by making offensive and transphobic posts on social media, some of which revealed sensitive medical information about Pupil A. In particular, the panel found that Miss Hannan had a deep-seated attitude, and that, whilst she was entitled to have that attitude and hold the views that she did, it was not acceptable for her to have posted these on social media in a way that was damaging to the profession, the School, pupils and in particular Pupil A (who she had “outed” by name). The panel noted that teachers have to be role models for pupils and in the wider community, and that Miss Hannan’s behaviour was incompatible with this role. As a result, the panel found that there was a current risk of repetition. In particular, the panel found that Miss Hannan currently did not demonstrate the sufficient level of insight into the impact of her actions on the profession, the School, Pupil A and the public to satisfy the panel that the actions would not be repeated. The panel also did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate the steps that Miss Hannan had taken to address her behaviour and to show that she had learned from it. However, the panel did consider that Miss Hannan may be able to demonstrate that she has taken steps to address and learn from her behaviour in the future, such as undertaking applicable training, and that she should be given the opportunity to do so. The panel also accepted that Miss Hannan was a good teacher, and that if she was able to address her behaviour and learn from it, then there would be some benefit in her re-joining the profession in the future. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period. The panel recommended a review period of 3 years. 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Miss Camilla Hannan should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of three years. In particular, the panel has found that Miss Hannan is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs o ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach … • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Hannan involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Miss Hannan fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. 21 The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher posting offensive/and or transphobic content on social media and demonstrating a lack of respect for the rights of others. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Miss Hannan, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel makes this observation: “There was a strong public interest consideration in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings against Miss Hannan which involved finding that she had made offensive and transphobic posts on social media, which had “outed” Pupil A by name as a transgender pupil, and therefore revealed Pupil A’s sensitive medical information to the public.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel took into account Miss Hannan’s level of insight and remorse. The panel noted that Miss Hannan accepted that she had made the posts on social media as soon as she was confronted by the School. The panel noted that she also apologised for these in her disciplinary interview, and stated that she deeply regretted “any upset or hurt” caused and “any potential harm which could have resulted from [her] actions”. The panel noted from Miss Hannan’s written representations in the bundle that she was remorseful for her behaviour. In particular, Miss Hannan stated that she felt “huge regret, shame, guilt and many other emotions”. However, the panel also noted that Miss Hannan’s remorse did appear to be somewhat self-serving. As an example, Miss Hannan stated in her written representations that she believed that she was posting on social media anonymously, and that she regrets that the measures taken were not sufficiently robust. The panel noted that this suggested that Miss Hannan’s remorse stemmed from being caught, rather than from reflections on her own behaviour. 22 With regard to insight, the panel found that Miss Hannan did not appear to demonstrate a sufficient level of insight into her behaviour, and in particular, the impact it had on Pupil A, the public, and the School as a whole. The panel found that Miss Hannan appeared to be more concerned about the impact the incident had had on her own health and wellbeing.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Miss Hannan has attained full insight into her behaviour and its impact on others means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observes that “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Hannan were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher posting content on social media that is offensive and/or fails to respect the right of others and which revealed sensitive medical information about a pupil in this case and the negative impact that such a finding may have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Miss Hannan herself. While noting that it did not have reason to believe that she had made a significant contribution to the wider education sector, the panel does record having seen evidence attesting to Miss Hannan’s good character, her abilities as a teacher and her commitment to her students. A prohibition order would prevent Miss Hannan from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. 23 In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the lack of insight demonstrated by Miss Hannan, and the risk this creates of a repetition in the future. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Miss Hannan has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, that is not backed up by full remorse and insight, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a three-year review period. I have considered the panel’s comments: “In particular, the panel found that Miss Hannan had a deep-seated attitude, and that, whilst she was entitled to have that attitude and hold the views that she did, it was not acceptable for her to have posted these on social media in a way that was damaging to the profession, the School, pupils and in particular Pupil A (who she had “outed” by name). The panel noted that teachers have to be role models for pupils and in the wider community, and that Miss Hannan’s behaviour was incompatible with this role. As a result, the panel found that there was a current risk of repetition. In particular, the panel found that Miss Hannan currently did not demonstrate the sufficient level of insight into the impact of her actions on the profession, the School, Pupil A and the public to satisfy the panel that the actions would not be repeated. The panel also did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate the steps that Miss Hannan had taken to address her behaviour and to show that she had learned from it. However, the panel did consider that Miss Hannan may be able to demonstrate that she has taken steps to address and learn from her behaviour in the future, such as undertaking applicable training, and that she should be given the opportunity to do so. The panel also accepted that Miss Hannan was a good teacher, and that if she was able to address her behaviour and learn from it, then there would be some benefit in her re-joining the profession in the future.” I have considered whether a three-year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. While I fully agree with the panel that the misconduct found in this case is serious, and that Miss Hannan’s current level of insight into the impact of her actions is insufficient and creates a risk of repetition, I have also noted its comments regarding her previous good record and the character evidence it considered regarding her abilities as 24 a teacher. I also note that Miss Hannan has reflected on her “huge regret, shame, guilt and many other emotions” in light of these events. Given these factors, it is my judgment that a review period of two years is a sufficient and proportionate response to the misconduct found in order to give her the opportunity to attain and demonstrate full insight into the impact of her behaviour. I consider therefore that a two-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Miss Camilla Hannan is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. She may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 17 September 2026, two years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If she does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Miss Hannan remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Miss Camilla Hannan has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 12 September 2024 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.