Miss Charlotte Doman

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Miss Charlotte Doman

Teacher reference number: 3945665

Teacher's date of birth: 16 August 1990

Location teacher worked: Essex, South East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 May 2025 to 21 May 2025

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 Charlotte Doman formerly employed in Essex, South East of 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 Charlotte Doman: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 30 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 35 3 Professional conduct panel hearing decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Charlotte Doman Teacher ref number: 3945665 Teacher date of birth: 16 August 1990 TRA reference: 22078 Date of determination: 21 May 2025 Former employer: William Edwards School, Essex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 19 to 21 May 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Miss Charlotte Doman (“Miss Doman”). The panel members were Mrs Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Kate Hurley (teacher panellist) and Ms Sarah Daniel (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Scott Smith of Counsel. Miss Doman was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 26 February 2025. It was alleged that Miss Doman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, while employed as a teacher at William Edwards School (“the School”): 1. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, she: a. gave her personal contact details to Pupil A; b. contacted Pupil A: i. via social media; ii. outside of school hours and/or at night; iii. about matters unrelated to the School. c. on one or more occasions, sent pictures of herself to Pupil A; d. on one or more occasions, referred to Pupil A as “little duck”; e. on one or more occasions, told Pupil A she loved him; f. on one or more occasions, sent Pupil A inappropriate messages about the relationship between her and Pupil A and/or her feelings towards Pupil A; g. on one or more occasions, invited Pupil A to spend time with her without anyone else present; h. made one or more comments about Pupil A’s physical appearance; i. made one or more comments about her physical appearance and/or body; j. told Pupil A “If you were here with us, I’d sit next to you and stroke your hair until you fell asleep”; k. sent one or more of the following messages to Pupil A: i. "This game is mental. Was just a cut scene of the weird inventor woman who is always making inappropriate comments touching up the robot. No words"; ii. "At some point there's proper edgy sex apparently"; 5 iii. "He's been stalking her but now he's basically sexually assaulting her and she likes it. He literally fucked her with a gun". l. told Pupil A details about her sexual relationships and/or sexual experiences; m. sent Pupil A one or more photographs of a written description of a sexual encounter; n. circled the words “good girl” in the written sexual encounter at 1(m) above and sent Pupil A a message that stated, “This is a little tip for you. That phrase right there. Most women love it”. 2. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, she: a. encouraged and/or allowed Pupil A to: i. consume alcohol with her; ii. smoke cannabis and/or consume illegal substances with her; b. told Pupil A that she had consumed and/or were under the influence of illegal substances. 3. On or around 3 May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, she suggested to Pupil A that he and/or his friend(s) could “pull sickies” and/or “bunk [off] school”. 4. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, she sent one or more messages to Pupil A about your personal circumstances, in that she: a. told Pupil A about the breakdown in her relationship with Person B; b. on one or more occasions, disclosed information about her personal state of health and/or wellbeing to Pupil A; c. on one or more occasions, told and/or indicated to Pupil A that she was [REDACTED]. 5. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, she failed to report safeguarding concerns in respect of Pupil A. 6. On or around 22 May 2023, she asked Pupil A to “remove all trace” of her. 7. Her conduct in any or all of paragraph 3, and 6 above: a. lacked integrity; b. was dishonest. 6 8. Her conduct in any or all of particulars 1, 2, 3 and 4 was a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. 9. Her conduct in any or all of particulars 1(a) to 1(n) was sexually motivated. The panel had sight of the notice of referral response form. Miss Doman admitted the facts of allegations 1 to 8 (inclusive of the sub allegations) but denied the facts of allegation 9. Miss Doman accepted that her admitted conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in the notice of referral response form. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 7 to 34 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 35 to 44 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 45 to 636 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 637 to 639 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • CPOMs log – page 640 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] 7 Witness B – [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Miss Doman was employed at the School from September 2018 as a trainee teacher and was subsequently employed as a history teacher in 2019. On 24 May 2023, a parent of a pupil raised a concern with the School in respect of Miss Doman’s alleged inappropriate contact with the Pupil A. The School made a referral to the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) on the same day. The deputy designated safeguarding lead (“DSL”) then met with Pupil A to discuss the concern. The School commenced an investigation. On 25 May 2023 a LADO strategy meeting was held and Miss Doman was suspended from her duties. On 20 June 2023, Miss Doman resigned from her position at the School and the School’s investigation continued thereafter for safeguarding reasons. 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. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, you: a. gave your personal contact details to Pupil A; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated that “I gave my phone number to Pupil A [REDACTED] who may need to contact me at some point. Several of [REDACTED] have my phone number in case of emergency for them [REDACTED], and this was the spirit in which it was given to Pupil A. I did not, and do not, have any of their phone numbers, nor have I ever asked for them.” The panel had decided to admit the witness statement and exhibits of Pupil A for the reasons outlined at the preliminary application stage of the hearing. In the witness statement dated 12 June 2024, Pupil A stated that “In April and May 2023, 8 [REDACTED] and was a pupil at William Edwards School. Ms Doman worked as a teacher at William Edwards School at this time. Between April and May 2023, I exchanged messages with Ms Doman on Instagram. I attach these messages to my statement as Exhibit A. The messages that I received in Exhibit A were sent by an Instagram account with the username ‘[REDACTED]. I confirm that the messages I received from the account with username ‘[REDACTED]’ were sent by Ms Doman, and that the Instagram account with username ‘[REDACTED]’ belonged to Ms Doman.” The panel acknowledged that Pupil A was not in attendance at the hearing to give oral evidence. However, there was no suggestion that Pupil A had reasons to fabricate what he had stated in his witness statement. The panel also had sight of the messages that were exchanged between Miss Doman and Pupil A on Instagram. The panel was not provided with any evidence to suggest that this Instagram account with username “[REDACTED]” was not the account of Miss Doman. Miss Doman was asked in the School’s investigation meeting whether she recognised the Instagram account ‘[REDACTED]’ as her account. Miss Doman replied ‘yes’. Miss Doman accepted that she had sent these messages from her personal Instagram account to Pupil A. The panel had sight of a message from Miss Doman to Pupil A on 1 April 2023. Miss Doman provided her mobile number and stated “in case you need it. Have fun.” The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A which stated “…You have my phone number. If you’re not okay, use it. You don’t have to talk, just be safe. I don’t always get the Instagram notifications so it’s the fastest way to get me…” When considering this evidence, the panel found allegation 1(a) proved. b. contacted Pupil A: i. via social media; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I did speak to the pupil out of hours on social media”. The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of multiple messages from Miss Doman to Pupil A which were sent via the Instagram account with username ““[REDACTED]”. The panel was not 9 provided with any evidence to suggest that this Instagram account with username “[REDACTED]” was not the account of Miss Doman. Miss Doman was asked in the School’s investigation meeting whether she recognised the Instagram account ‘[REDACTED]’ as her account. Miss Doman replied ‘yes’. Miss Doman accepted that she had sent messages from her personal Instagram account to Pupil A. The panel therefore found allegation 1(b)(i) proved. ii. outside of school hours and/or at night; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I did speak to the pupil out of hours on social media”. The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel noted that some of the Instagram messages were sent outside of school hours. For example, Miss Doman sent Pupil A messages on Saturday 8 and Sunday 9 April 2023. The panel also has sight of several messages from Miss Doman to Pupil A which were sent at nighttime. For example, the panel had sight of an Instagram message which was sent from Miss Doman to Pupil A on 6 May 2023 at 00:15. Another message was timestamped as being sent at 00:51 on a different date. The panel therefore found allegation 1(b)(i) proved. iii. about matters unrelated to the School. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I did speak to the pupil out of hours on social media about matters non-school related.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of multiple Instagram messages from Miss Doman to Pupil A between April and May 2023, where the topics of conversation were completely unrelated to the School. For example, Miss Doman shared matters which included her personal sexual relationship with her partner, sent photographs of herself, including her tattoos to Pupil A, discussed health related matters, previous sexual 10 relationships and her experiences of taking drugs and alcohol. The panel noted, for the avoidance of doubt, that this was not an exhaustive list of examples and there were further examples within the Instagram messages where Miss Doman discussed matters with Pupil A which were unrelated to the School. Therefore, the panel found allegation 1(b)(iii) proved. c. on one or more occasions, sent pictures of yourself to Pupil A; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “Most of the pictures sent to Pupil A were not of myself, but of scenery or my dog. The pictures I did send are things that, in general, pupils had seen already. My tattoos, for example, were on display during a heatwave and I had permission from the headteacher to dress comfortably and have my tattoos on show. However, I do recognise that this was inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message in April 2023 from Miss Doman to Pupil A which stated “Have I ever shown you the [REDACTED] tattoo on my thigh?” Pupil A replied “No”. The panel had sight of the image that Miss Doman then sent to Pupil A of her tattoo. The panel also had sight of multiple images of Miss Doman’s tattoos which were sent from Miss Doman’s Instagram account to Pupil A. The panel also had sight of an image which was sent by Miss Doman to Pupil A in May 2023 of herself and her dog. The panel therefore found allegation 1(c) proved. d. on one or more occasions, referred to Pupil A as “little duck”; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “The nickname is just something I do with people I talk to. All of my friends have nicknames that I’ve given them and refer to them as. This was not in any way romantic in purpose. I recognise that these things were inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. 11 The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A on 22 April at 13:57 stating “Are you okay? Do you need anything? To vent/talk/feel sorry for yourself/funny pictures? I’m here. No judgement little duck.” The panel also had sight of another Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A stating “I promised I wouldn’t leave you little duck.” The panel had sight of a further Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A where she stated “You’re mine, little duck…” In another Instagram message to Pupil A, Miss Doman stated, “It’s effort because you’re depressed, my little duck.” Miss Doman also stated in another message to Pupil A “…Goodnight, little duck” The panel saw other messages which were sent to Pupil A by Miss Doman, where she referred to Pupil A as “little duck”, such as on 24 April 2023 at 06:33 and 26 April 2023. The panel therefore found allegation 1(d) proved. e. on one or more occasions, told Pupil A you loved him; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I did tell the pupil I loved him, but it was understood by us both that it wasn’t intimate or romantic, just me letting him know that someone cared about his existence.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A which stated “I love you, and I will love you even when you grow up and go off into the world…” In another Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A, she stated “I’m going to keep telling you I love you even though you don’t like it because you need to know people love you. I don’t care if you never love me or say it because love isn’t meant to be selfish. It’s not how it works. So get used to it.” Miss Doman also said in April 2023 “Love you” in another message to Pupil A. On 24 April 2023 at 15:51, Miss Doman said “Remember I love you and I will burn the world for you if you ask me to. I only care about you…” 12 The panel had sight of other Instagram messages that were sent from Miss Doman to Pupil A where she said “I love you”, for example on 25 April 2023. The panel therefore found allegation 1(e) proved. f. on one or more occasions, sent Pupil A inappropriate messages about the relationship between you and Pupil A and/or your feelings towards Pupil A; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated in reference to her conduct in allegations 1(d) and 1(e) that “I recognise that these things were inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of the following Instagram messages from Miss Doman to Pupil A which were sent between April and May 2023: "…I'm as much yours as you are mine, little duck". "…I wasn't prepared for how attached I am to you. Sorry”. "…My head is so messed up. I'm so attached to you, and you have such a mega impact on me, and so much control you don't even know you have". "… I'm [REDACTED] older than you. You're not even legal or an adult or anything. Like, am I taking advantage of you? Some days it feels like you're taking advantage of me lol". "Sometimes I really wonder why I care so much about you. You couldn't care less about me most of the time". "…If you're trying to make me think about you all day then you succeeded in that weeks ago. Or is this all just a game? Give me a break already”. "Omg, I'm just one of your girls now aren't I. That's calm you know". "The biggest thing that bothers me about you is I always feel like you don't care about me. You fuck me up much more than I can even put words to". "…when you get more affection from a kid at school than you do [REDACTED], theres [sic] something massively wrong there". “What’s going on? Why are you being funny with me? Is it what I said last night?”. 13 “…Please don’t push me away. Please”. “Cheers for fucking abandoning me. Appreciate that”. “The worst part is you promised you wouldn’t leave me”. “…I made myself vulnerable and told you things I’ve never even told [REDACTED], and you abandon me”. “…YOU have all the control in this relationship”. “Love that you’re still ignoring me. I’m gonna go get fucked up”. “Why bother then?”, “If I’m not worth the effort, don’t bother”, “I think I’m done with life”. “You’ve completely shut me out, and in doing so you have hurt me incredibly badly”. “Why do you always disappear or act like a twat when I need you?”. “Why do I keep trying when you just don’t care about me anymore”, “Wtaf is your problem man”. The panel noted that the content of the aforementioned messages related to Miss Doman’s relationship with Pupil A and her feelings towards him. The panel considered that the nature of these messages was completely inappropriate and a failure to maintain the professional teacher-pupil boundary. The panel was of the view that Miss Doman’s messaging was manipulative and relentless, especially when Pupil A did not respond to her messages promptly. The panel found allegation 1(f) proved. g. on one or more occasions, invited Pupil A to spend time with you without anyone else present; Miss Doman initially admitted to this allegation in the notice of referral response form. However, in a later written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman did not admit the entirety of this allegation. In her written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I recognise that inviting Pupil A was inappropriate and I’m not sure what my thought process was but I didn’t spend time with him alone as [REDACTED] was always present or we were at school.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. 14 The panel had sight of the following Instagram messages sent by Miss Doman to Pupil A between April and May 2023: "I stay at [redacted] on Wednesday, Thursday and Saturday, but I always have my car. You tell me, and I will be there". “Yeah not around her lol. We’d have to go out to smoke anyway”. "I’m gonna be alone all afternoon cos [redacted] is at work and mum is taking Person B to physio then leaving her at [redacted]. You should come see me if you've got nothing better to do". "Are you gonna come see me? You could help me over the field and we'll chill". "We can't smoke in the flat but you can drink. We can go over the back field and hide though. No one goes over there". The panel did not accept that [REDACTED] was always present or that Miss Doman and Pupil A were always at the School as suggested by Miss Doman, when considering the aforementioned messages. The panel therefore found allegation 1(g) proved. h. made one or more comments about Pupil A’s physical appearance; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “Any comments made about Pupil A’s appearance were due to his lack of self-esteem and were not romantic in nature. I recognise that this was inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of the following Instagram messages sent by Miss Doman to Pupil A between April and May 2023: "Have I ever told you that you have really nice hands? [REDACTED].” "I also think your smile might be the cutest thing I've ever seen". The panel therefore found allegation 1(h) proved. i. made one or more comments about your physical appearance and/or body; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. 15 In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I was [REDACTED], and this is the only reason I would have made comments about myself. I recognise that this was inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A where she described her physical appearance and body. She said “I’m pretty and I make people feel cared about, and my boobs are quite big, so people like me.” The panel also had sight of the following Instagram messages sent by Miss Doman to Pupil A between April and May 2023: "I literally go get waxed every 8 weeks for no one to appreciate it". [REDACTED]. The panel therefore found allegation 1(i) proved. j. told Pupil A “If you were here with us, I’d sit next to you and stroke your hair until you fell asleep”; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “This comment was meant in the same way that I would do it [REDACTED]. It was not meant in any way to be romantic in nature but was inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A. She said “You make me feel very protective. If you were here with us, I’d sit next to you and stroke your hair until you fell asleep. I sometimes wonder is I’m helping you at all, or if I’m just making it all worse for you.” The panel therefore found allegation 1(j) proved. k. sent one or more of the following messages to Pupil A: i. "This game is mental. Was just a cut scene of the weird inventor woman who is always making inappropriate comments touching up the robot. No words"; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. 16 In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman responded to allegations k, l, m and n collectively by stating “These comments were entirely inappropriate and occurred while I was reading a book that someone recommended, and [REDACTED] when I’m reading and would not have usually made these comments to anyone, let alone a pupil. I recognise this was inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A in April 2023 which stated “This game is mental. Was just a cut scene of the weird inventor woman who is always making inappropriate comments touching up the robot. No words.” The panel therefore found allegation 1(k)(i) proved. ii. "At some point there's proper edgy sex apparently"; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. The panel noted Miss Doman’s collective response to allegations k, l, m and n as outlined in k(i) above. The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A on 28 April 2023 which stated “I’m fed up with life so I’ve started reading this book about this woman. Some guy gets proper obsessed with her, stalks her, and I think he kidnaps her and shit. At some point there’s proper edgy sex apparently.” The panel therefore found allegation 1(k)(ii) proved. iii. "He's been stalking her but now he's basically sexually assaulting her and she likes it. He literally fucked her with a gun". Miss Doman admitted this allegation. The panel noted Miss Doman’s collective response to allegations k, l, m and n as outlined in k(i) above. The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. 17 The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A in April 2023 which stated “Omg I didn’t tell you about my book I’m reading. He’s been stalking her but now hes basically sexually assaulting her and she likes it. He literally fucked her with a gun.” The panel therefore found allegation 1(k)(iii) proved. l. told Pupil A details about your sexual relationships and/or sexual experiences; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. The panel noted Miss Doman’s collective response to allegations k, l, m and n as outlined in k(i) above. The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of the following Instagram messages sent by Miss Doman to Pupil A between April and May 2023: "I was shagging [REDACTED] and everything". "Once I scratched the shit out of his back to the point he bled through his shirt the next day. Nothing mattered. We were wild". In relation to a previous sexual partner, Miss Doman [REDACTED] "…One night I ended up with 3 different guys". "For this to all make sense, you need to know something inappropriate about me. In my everyday life, I am firmly in control and make decisions and have a dominant personality type. However, when I'm dating someone, I am submissive". "[Redacted] won't fucking touch me. Happy to cuddle me like a fucking Teddy bear". "This new book I'm attempting to read… It explains the whole Dom/sub thing really well but it's giving me flashbacks of [REDACTED]". The panel therefore found allegation 1(l) proved. m. sent Pupil A one or more photographs of a written description of a sexual encounter; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. 18 The panel noted Miss Doman’s collective response to allegations k, l, m and n as outlined in k(i) above. The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an extract from the book Miss Doman’s reported she was reading which she sent to Pupil A via Instagram. In this extract there was a detailed written description of a sexual encounter. The panel therefore found allegation 1(m) proved. n. circled the words “good girl” in the written sexual encounter at 1(m) above and sent Pupil A a message that stated, “This is a little tip for you. That phrase right there. Most women love it”. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. The panel noted Miss Doman’s collective response to allegations k, l, m and n as outlined in k(i) above. The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of the extract from Miss Doman’s book which she sent to Pupil A via Instagram. The words “good girl” were circled in red. After this, Miss Doman said “This is a little tip for you. That phrase right there. Most women love it.” The panel therefore found allegation 1(n) proved. 2. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, you: a. encouraged and/or allowed Pupil A to: i. consume alcohol with you; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman responded to allegations 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii) and 2(a)(iii) collectively by stating “I am unsure why any of this occurred. I can’t remember if there was any thought process behind saying these things. I did not and would not provide or normally encourage this behaviour, and I certainly don’t behave like this myself. I drink alcohol less than once a month and never to excess, and I’ve never taken drugs. [REDACTED]. This was inappropriate.” 19 The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A where Miss Doman said "Aside from all that, come get trashed with me on Tuesday if you're free". The panel found allegation 2(a)(i) proved. ii. smoke cannabis and/or consume illegal substances with you; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. The panel noted Miss Doman’s response to this allegation in her written statement as stated in the above allegation (2(a)(i). The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A which stated “…Don’t take the drugs please. If you decide to, don’t take it all at once and let me know so I can make sure you don’t die or whatever. Or do it with me. I’m only worried about your safety.” The panel therefore found allegation 2(a)(ii) proved. b. told Pupil A that you had consumed and/or were under the influence of illegal substances. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. The panel noted Miss Doman’s response to this allegation in her written statement as stated in the above allegation (2(a)(i). The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A when she referred to her time as a university student. She said “I was drunk all the time and we did weed and shit.” The panel therefore found allegation 2(b) proved. 3. On or around 3 May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, you suggested to Pupil A that he and/or his friend(s) could “pull sickies” and/or “bunk [off] school”. 20 Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “These comments were meant as a joke. I recognise that they were inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of a message from Miss Doman to Pupil A from around 3 May 2023 which said “Are you and the boys going to be okay if I have to be off sick? You could always pull sickies and we’ll all just game at mine all day…” In a later message to Pupil A, Miss Doman stated "…Can't believe you won't bunk school with me man. Rude." The panel therefore found allegation 3 proved. 4. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, you sent one or more messages to Pupil A about your personal circumstances, in that you: b. on one or more occasions, disclosed information about your personal state of health and/or wellbeing to Pupil A; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. Miss Doman stated in her written statement to the TRA that “During this period I was [REDACTED] and needed someone to talk to. I recognise that talking to Pupil A about these things was inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of a message from Miss Doman to Pupil A where she stated “[REDACTED]". The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A where she said “[REDACTED]” The panel therefore found allegation 4(b) proved. c. on one or more occasions, told and/or indicated to Pupil A that you were [REDACTED]. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. 21 The panel noted Miss Doman’s response to this allegation in her written statement as stated in the above allegation 4(b). The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A when she described her personal state of health, and then said “[REDACTED]” In a later message sent to Pupil A in May 2023, Miss Doman stated "And I've just realised that you've probably told [redacted] that you talk to me outside of school, [REDACTED] and now all I need to decide is if I want to say anything to anyone. I don't think I do. The people I love know I love them, so I guess I'll just have to say this to you. I'm sorry". The panel therefore found allegation 4(c) proved. 5. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, you failed to report safeguarding concerns in respect of Pupil A. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I did report safeguarding concerns to begin with but I recognise that I failed in my duty to report a lot of them and I should have done so regardless of the effects I thought it would have on Pupil A.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Pupil A to Miss Doman in April 2023. Pupil A informed Miss Doman that he was “[REDACTED]” Pupil A also informed Miss Doman that his “[REDACTED].” Pupil A also disclosed to Miss Doman the following information in around April 2023: [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. The panel had sight of a CPOMs log which the panel decided to admit at the preliminary application stage of the hearing. The CPOMs log showed that Miss Doman had recorded 2 previous incidents involving Pupil A on 28 November 2022 and 19 May 2023. The panel acknowledged that Miss Doman was fully aware of how to record safeguarding concerns as she had done so previously. 22 The panel had sight of the School’s Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy dated September 2022. The panel noted that the overriding principle of this policy was that all staff are expected to share the commitment to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children and young people. The School’s Code of Conduct set out that “…everyone is expected to share any and all safeguarding concerns. This includes an expectation of self-reporting where an individual finds themselves in a situation which may be, or appear to be, compromising or where they have fallen short in expectations. Concerns should be referred to the Designated Safeguarding Lead and/or Headteacher.” The panel considered that Miss Doman was in breach of the School’s Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy and Code of Conduct by failing to report safeguarding concerns about Pupil A between April and May 2023. The panel further noted that Witness A, who gave oral evidence at the hearing, stated that Miss Doman “received annual safeguarding training every year, after she qualified. As she trained through the School she also received training prior to qualifying. As such Ms Doman was safeguard trained as part of her initial training and annual training.” The panel also had sight of the online training that Miss Doman received at the School, which included Child Protection in Education. The panel was satisfied that Miss Doman failed to report the aforementioned safeguarding concerns about Pupil A in the Instagram messages in around April 2023, despite Miss Doman having received safeguarding and child protection training as part of her professional role. The panel therefore found allegation 5 proved. 6. On or around 22 May 2023, you asked Pupil A to “remove all trace” of you. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I asked Pupil A to remove all trace of me [REDACTED], and this coincided with my realisation that I was [REDACTED] didn’t want to drag him into my [REDACTED]. I recognise that this was inappropriate.” The panel noted the contents of Pupil A’s witness statement, as set out in allegation 1(a) above. The panel had sight of an Instagram message from Miss Doman to Pupil A from around May 2023, which stated “I’m gonna destroy my phone as it’s the only way it 23 can’t be tracked. I’d appreciate it if you remove all trace of me. It’s the only way to protect you when they find me.” The panel therefore found allegation 6 proved. 7. Your conduct in any or all of paragraph 3, and 6 above: a. lacked integrity; Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated in response to this allegation that “I recognise this and understand my actions were inappropriate, despite not being intentional.” When considering lack of integrity, the panel recognised that this allegation suggests adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession that involves more than mere honesty. It is linked to the manner in which the profession professes to serve the public. When considering allegation 3, the panel noted Miss Doman’s conduct in suggesting to Pupil A that he and/or his friends could “pull sickies” and “bunk off school” was in complete contrast to the professional duties that a teacher is duty bound to adhere to. The panel recognised that Miss Doman’s conduct encouraged Pupil A to break the law. There was no evidence to suggest Miss Doman’s comments were said “as a joke” when considering the context of the messages. When considering Miss Doman’s proven conduct in allegation 6 where she asked Pupil A to “remove all trace” of her, the panel was of the view that Miss Doman was attempting to cover her tracks by making these comments. The panel noted that if Pupil A had “removed all trace” of Miss Doman’s messages, Miss Doman could potentially plausibly deny sending such messages. The panel considered that this conduct was completely inappropriate and again in complete contrast to the professional duties that a teacher is required to adhere to. The panel considered that Miss Doman’s proven conduct in allegations 3 and 6 did not adhere to the ethical standards of a teacher and, was in contrast to the manner in which the profession professes to serve the public and lacked integrity. Therefore, the panel found allegation 7(a) proved. b. was dishonest. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. 24 In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated in response to this allegation that “I recognise this and understand my actions were inappropriate, despite not being intentional.” When considering whether Miss Doman’s conduct was dishonest, the panel needed first to ascertain subjectively the actual state of Miss Doman’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. Secondly, the panel needed to determine whether Miss Doman’s state of mind was honest or dishonest by the application of the objective standards of the ordinary honest person. The panel firstly turned its mind to the actual state of Miss Doman’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. When considering Miss Doman’s proven conduct in allegation 3, the panel noted that Miss Doman’s suggestion to Pupil A that he and/or his friends could “pull sickies” and “bunk off school” was deliberate and a conscious decision was made by Miss Doman to send the messages. There was no evidence to suggest Miss Doman’s comments were said “as a joke” when considering the context of the messages. [REDACTED]. The panel noted that Miss Doman was aware that she was wrong to send the messages as she stated in her statement to the TRA that she recognised that her conduct was inappropriate. Whilst the panel considered that her conduct in encouraging Pupil A and/or his friends to truant was inappropriate, when considering her obligations as a teacher in a position of trust, the panel did not find this to be dishonest. When considering Miss Doman’s proven conduct in allegation 6 where she asked Pupil A to “remove all trace” of her, the panel was of the view that Miss Doman was attempting to cover her tracks by making these comments. The panel noted that if Pupil A had “removed all trace” of Miss Doman’s messages, Miss Doman could potentially plausibly deny sending such messages. The panel considered that Miss Doman’s conduct was dishonest when considering her obligations as a teacher, in a position of trust. Furthermore, the panel found that her conduct in allegation 6 would be regarded by the standards of ordinary, decent people to be dishonest. Given Miss Doman’s knowledge of her professional duties, the panel was satisfied that there was no other reason why she would have suggested to Pupil A that he should “remove all trace” of her. The panel found allegation 7(b) proved, in respect of allegation 6. 25 8. Your conduct in any or all of particulars 1, 2, 3 and 4 was a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. Miss Doman admitted this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “I recognise that I failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.” The panel considered that Miss Doman’s proven conduct in allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 was a failure to maintain the professional teacher-pupil boundary. The panel recognised that as a teacher, Miss Doman was expected to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries with pupils. The panel considered that Miss Doman exploited her pos ition of trust by contacting Pupil A via social media which led to extremely inappropriate conversations as set out in allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4. The panel recognised that in Miss Doman’s failure to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries, she was in breach of the School’s policies, including the Code of Conduct which stated that employees will adopt the highest standards of personal integrity and conduct both in and outside of work. The panel therefore determined that Miss Doman’s conduct in proven allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 was a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The panel found allegation 8 proved. 9. Your conduct in any or all of particulars 1(a) to 1(n) was sexually motivated. Miss Doman did not admit this allegation. In a written statement to the TRA, Miss Doman stated “None of my actions were ever sexually motivated. I have never seen Pupil A in that way and I would never see any pupil in that way. This can be seen in the comment where Pupil A said he was in the bath and I told him I didn’t need to know that. When I asked Pupil A if I could touch him, this was in the context of him saying [REDACTED], which I should have reported, and I was asking in a sense that people occasionally brush past or accidentally bump into each other etc. and I wanted to know if I needed to be extra careful to ensure distance from him. Pupil A understood that this wasn’t sexual. Any other comments were not personal nor related to him in any way.” The panel noted that in the case of Basson v GMC (2018), it was observed that “the state of a person’s mind is not something that can be proved by direct 26 observation. It can only be proved by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence”. It was also stated in the case of Basson v GMC that a sexual motive means the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The panel noted that Miss Doman was consistent in her response to the allegation and has always denied her conduct was sexually motivated. The panel also acknowledged the circumstances that Miss Doman found herself in at the time. [REDACTED]. The panel took the view that Miss Doman was aware of what she was doing was wrong by recognising that her conduct was inappropriate. The panel had sight of Miss Doman’s representations where she stated that she saw Pupil A like her child due to him being a friend of Person B. The panel had sight of Instagram messages where Miss Doman appeared to reflect her view, such as when she said to Pupil A “…If you need to get out, you know where we are…. Our door is always open for you. You can be here with us as much as you want. When we move, you can come there too…” The panel noted that this phrasing implied that Miss Doman may have seen Pupil A as part of her family unit by using the plural wording. It implied that her family wanted to support Pupil A. However, whilst the panel recognised that some of Miss Doman’s messaging supported her position in that she saw Pupil A like her child, the context of the majority of messages as set out at proven allegations 1a to 1n did not imply that Miss Doman just simply saw Pupil A like her child. The panel noted that the momentum built, and frequency of messaging increased over time. The panel recognised that when Pupil A did not respond to Miss Doman promptly, her messaging became manipulative and persistent. The panel noted that this style of communication was not in keeping with the type of relationship she had described with Pupil A. The panel noted that Miss Doman would discuss with Pupil A her sexual relationship with [REDACTED] including the [REDACTED]. The panel considered that Miss Doman was behaving as though she was in a relationship with Pupil A when considering the language used. The panel further considered that Miss Doman was potentially disclosing the [REDACTED] so that Pupil A could take up the place as her sexual partner. 27 The panel also noted that Miss Doman had sent Pupil A an extract from a novel describing a detailed sexual encounter and provided commentary on the book. The panel noted that this was not the type of conversation that you would engage in with a minor who you considered to be part of your own family. The panel noted that the sexual topics were instigated Miss Doman. The panel recognised that there was no prompting or encouragement by Pupil A for Miss Doman to disclose details in respect of her sexual experiences or relationship. The panel did not see any other reason as to why Miss Doman discussed her past sexual experiences, problems in her relationship and a graphic sexual extract from a book other than if it were in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. The panel therefore determined that Miss Doman’s conduct was sexually motivated. The panel therefore found allegation 9 proved, on the balance of probabilities. The panel did not find the following particular of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 4. Between around April 2023 to May 2023, when Pupil A was a pupil at the School, you sent one or more messages to Pupil A about your personal circumstances, in that you: a. told Pupil A about the breakdown in your relationship with Person B; The panel recognised that this allegation should have referred to the breakdown Miss Doman’s relationship with Person D, rather than Person B. There was no evidence to suggest that Miss Doman’s relationship with Person B had broken down. However, there was evidence to suggest that there had been a breakdown in Miss Doman's relationship with Person D. This drafting error was not brought to the panel’s attention during the substantive part of the hearing. For these reasons, the panel did not find allegation 4(a) proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all but allegation 4(a) 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 28 of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Miss Doman, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Miss Doman 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 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 Doman, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Miss Doman was in breach of the following provision: • Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play. In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all practitioners should make sure their approach is child-centred. This means that they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interest of the child. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Doman, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. 29 The panel considered that Miss Doman was in breach of the following provision: • This child centred approach is fundamental to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of every child. A child centred approach means keeping the child in focus when making decisions about their lives and working in partnership with them and their families. The panel also considered whether Miss Doman’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 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 found that the offences of sexual communication with a child and controlling or coercive behaviour were relevant. The panel noted that a number of the Instagram messages were sent outside of school hours or at night. The panel considered that the overall conduct of Miss Doman sending Instagram messages to Pupil A during and outside of school hours affected the way Miss Doman fulfilled her teaching role. The panel also considered that her conduct may have led to Pupil A being exposed to, or influenced by, the behaviour in a harmful way, due to the inappropriate method of communication, which blurred the professional teacher-pupil boundary, the nature of the inappropriate conversations [REDACTED]. The panel considered that Miss Doman failed in her duty to maintain appropriate and professional boundaries with Pupil A and to safeguard Pupil A by contacting him via social media, where she instigated extremely inappropriate topics of conversation and failed to report the safeguarding concerns raised by Pupil A as part of these conversations. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Doman amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Miss Doman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. Disrepute In relation to whether Miss Doman’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It 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 30 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. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Miss Doman’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Miss Doman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that offences of sexual communication with a child and controlling or coercive behaviour were relevant. 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 Doman’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. The panel considered that Miss Doman significantly abused her position of trust when she contacted Pupil A via social media and engaged in extremely inappropriate topics of conversation, including but not limited to, her personal sexual relationship with her partner, previous sexual relationships, health related matters, her experiences of taking drugs and alcohol, her encouragement for Pupil A to truant from school and asking Pupil A to ‘remove all trace’ of her from his phone. The panel considered the seriously damaging impact of Miss Doman’s conduct on Pupil A, his parents, the School and the wider school community. The panel was of the view that Miss Doman’s conduct had the potential to influence Pupil A in a harmful way, due to the inappropriate method of communication, which blurred the professional teacher-pupil boundary, the nature of the inappropriate conversations [REDACTED]. The panel also recognised the serious impact that Miss Doman’s conduct could have had on Pupil A’s parents and the potential damage to the School’s reputation. For these reasons, the panel found that Miss Doman’s actions constituted 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 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 should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and 31 proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. 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 maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Miss Doman, which involved sexually motivated and inappropriate communication with a pupil, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Doman was 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 Doman was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Miss Doman in the profession. Whilst there was limited evidence that Miss Doman had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Miss Doman in the profession, since her behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and she sought to exploit her position of trust. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation from 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 noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Miss Doman. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: 32 • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils); • an abuse of any trust, knowledge, or influence gained through their professional position in order to advance a romantic or sexual relationship with a pupil or former pupil; • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; • failure to act on evidence that indicated a child’s welfare may have been at risk e.g. failed to notify the designated safeguarding lead and/or make a referral to children’s social care, the police or other relevant agencies when abuse, neglect and/or harmful cultural practices were identified; • 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); • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences, or involved the coercion of another person to act in a way contrary to their own interests; • collusion or concealment including: o encouraging others to break rules; Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was evidence that Miss Doman’s actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Miss Doman was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation Miss Doman was said to have previously good professional history, but there was no evidence to suggest that she demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both her personal and professional conduct nor that she contributed significantly to the education sector. 33 The panel acknowledged the circumstances in which Miss Doman found herself in at the time of her conduct. [REDACTED]. Miss Doman stated in her written statement to the TRA that [REDACTED] The panel acknowledged the difficulties that Miss Doman was facing in her personal life at the time of her conduct. Witness A described Miss Doman as “not the strongest teacher, but was an acceptable teacher.” He stated that she “worked hard but was not an astonishing practitioner”. Witness B described Miss Doman as “an enthusiastic teacher and engaged pupils well in learning. She stated that Miss Doman “appeared to be doing her job as you would expect” and that there were no concerns about her ability to engage appropriately with students at that time. The panel was not provided with any character statements for Miss Doman. The panel considered that Miss Doman was remorseful about her conduct. Miss Doman stated in her written statement to the TRA that “Overall, I am deeply regretful of my inappropriate conduct. [REDACTED] Again, the panel acknowledged that no supporting evidence had been provided to substantiate Miss Doman’s comments in respect of what she had being doing since her misconduct to address her issues. The panel was of the view that Miss Doman did not show sufficient insight in respect of the impact her conduct had on others, in particular, Pupil A. The panel noted that Miss Doman focused on the impact that her conduct had on herself. This was particularly apparent when she asked Pupil A to “remove all trace” of her from his phone. 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 Doman 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 Doman. The finding of sexually motivated communication with a pupil was a significant 34 factor 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. 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 certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons; • any sexual misconduct involving a child; The panel noted that these categories were engaged as a finding was made that Miss Doman’s communication with Pupil A as set out in allegations 1(a) to 1(n) was sexually motivated. The panel was informed of the dates in which Pupil A attended the School. Pupil A was a child at the time of Miss Doman’s misconduct. Whilst the panel recognised that the advice indicated that the above types of cases weighed in favour of not offering a review period, the panel was of the view that a review period would be appropriate when considering the mitigating factors. The panel was of the view that Miss Doman was remorseful, noting the comments from her written statement to the TRA as outlined above. The panel also noted that there was no evidence to suggest that this type of behaviour had occurred on any previous occasion with Pupil A or any other pupil. The panel did however express concern in respect of Miss Doman’s lack of insight in respect of the impact her conduct had on others, in particular, Pupil A. [REDACTED]. As this type of behaviour had not occurred on any previous occasion and given the difficulties that Miss Doman was experiencing in her personal life at this time, the panel was of the view that a 5-year review period would be an appropriate length of time to recommend. The panel was of the view that this period of time was sufficient to recognise the seriousness of the behaviour and to allow Miss Doman to reflect on her conduct and 35 seek medical and psychological support in order to mitigate the risk of repeated behaviours. 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 provision for a 5-year review period. 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 some 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. In this case, the panel has also found one of the allegations not proven. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Miss Charlotte Doman should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of five years. In particular, the panel has found that Miss Doman 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 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… 36 • 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 Doman involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’ and/or involved breaches of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. The panel finds that the conduct of Miss Doman fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher engaging in sexually motivated and inappropriate communications with a pupil, failing to follow proper safeguarding practices, and exhibiting behaviour that was both dishonest and lacked integrity. 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 Doman, 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 has observed: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Miss Doman, which involved sexually motivated and inappropriate communication with a pupil, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils.” 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 considered that Miss Doman was remorseful about her conduct. Miss Doman stated in her written statement to the TRA that “Overall, I am deeply regretful of my inappropriate conduct. [REDACTED] 37 Again, the panel acknowledged that no supporting evidence had been provided to substantiate Miss Doman’s comments in respect of what she had being doing since her misconduct to address her issues. The panel was of the view that Miss Doman did not show sufficient insight in respect of the impact her conduct had on others, in particular, Pupil A. The panel noted that Miss Doman focused on the impact that her conduct had on herself. This was particularly apparent when she asked Pupil A to “remove all trace” of her from his phone.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Miss Doman has developed full insight into her behaviour and its impact 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 makes the following observation: “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 Doman’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher.” I am particularly mindful of a teacher engaging in inappropriate communications with a pupil in this case, including communications that were sexually motivated and/or encouraged the taking of illegal substances, and the very negative impact that such findings could 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 likely to 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 Doman herself. The panel records the following evidence relating to her abilities and conduct as a teacher: 38 “Witness A described Miss Doman as “not the strongest teacher, but was an acceptable teacher.” He stated that she “worked hard but was not an astonishing practitioner”. Witness B described Miss Doman as “an enthusiastic teacher and engaged pupils well in learning. She stated that Miss Doman “appeared to be doing her job as you would expect” and that there were no concerns about her ability to engage appropriately with students at that time.” The panel also records that it was not provided with any character statements for Miss Doman but does acknowledge that she appears to have had a good professional history prior to these events. It also references the difficulties that Miss Doman was facing in her personal life at the time of her conduct. A prohibition order would prevent Miss Doman 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. In this case, I have placed considerable weight both on the serious nature of the misconduct found as well as the panel’s comments concerning the lack of evidence of full insight and the consequential risk of repetition. 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 five-year review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “As this type of behaviour had not occurred on any previous occasion and given the difficulties that Miss Doman was experiencing in her personal life at this time, the panel was of the view that a 5-year review period would be an appropriate length of time to recommend. The panel was of the view that this period of time was sufficient to recognise the seriousness of the behaviour and to allow Miss Doman to reflect on her conduct and seek medical and psychological support in order to mitigate the risk of repeated behaviours. 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 provision for a 5-year review period.” 39 I have considered whether a 5-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. In this case, factors mean that allowing a shorter review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious nature of the misconduct found, including a teacher engaging in sexually-motivated communications with a child, as well as the lack of evidence that Miss Doman has developed full insight into her behaviour and the risk of repetition this presents. I consider therefore that a 5-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and for Miss Doman to demonstrate that she has developed full insight into her behaviour. Such a review period should also afford Miss Doman sufficient time to develop strategies to enable her to deal with personal challenges appropriately and without jeopardising the safety and wellbeing of others should they arise in the future. This means that Miss Charlotte Doman 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 27 May 2030, 5 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 Doman remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Miss Doman has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 23 May 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.