Miss Danielle Auerbach - Byrne

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 Danielle Auerbach - Byrne

Teacher reference number: 9455255

Teacher's date of birth: 25 September 1969

Location teacher worked: north west, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 October 2022

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 Ms Danielle Auerbach Byrne, formerly employed in 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.

Ms Danielle Auerbach- Byrne: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Danielle Auerbach-Byrne Teacher ref number: 9455255 Teacher date of birth: 25 September 1969 TRA reference: 19896 Date of determination: 17 October 2022 Former employer: North Liverpool Academy, Liverpool Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually by Microsoft Teams on 17 October 2022, to consider the case of Ms Danielle Auerbach-Byrne. The panel members were Ms Juliet Berry (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Rosemary Joyce (teacher panellist) Dr Zubair Hanslot (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Anna Marjoram of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael O’Donohoe of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Ms Auerbach-Byrne was present at the commencement of the hearing and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 21 July 2022. It was alleged that Ms Auerbach-Byrne was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or having been convicted of a relevant offence at any time, in that: 1. on 23 December 2020, she was convicted of retaining wrongful credit contrary to s24a of the Theft Act 1968; 2. her conduct as set out at allegation 1 was dishonest. Ms Auerbach-Byrne admitted the allegations. Ms Auerbach-Byrne admitted that she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of hearing and response – pages 4 to 7 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 9 to 116 Section 3: Teacher documents – page 118 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. During the course of the hearing, the presenting officer made an application to admit the bundle on the basis that it had become apparent it had not been served in accordance with paragraph 5.36 of the Procedures. The panel considered representations from the presenting officer. The panel noted that Ms Auerbach-Byrne had had sight of the documents in advance of the hearing and did not raise any objections in relation to them, including during the part of the hearing which she had attended. The panel considered it fair to admit the bundle and that the documents contained therein may reasonably be considered relevant to the case. 5 Witnesses No witnesses were called by either party. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Ms Auerbach-Byrne was employed as a teacher of science at Rainhill High School from November 2016 to August 2017, during which time she was paid by St Helen’s Local Authority. Ms Auerbach-Byrne was then employed as a teacher of science at Range High School from September 2017 to July 2018, and as a teacher of science at Harrop Fold School from September 2018 to December 2018. Ms Auerbach-Byrne was employed as a supply teacher at North Liverpool Academy from January 2019, and then as a permanent teacher from May 2019 until she tendered her resignation on 12 March 2021. On/around 18 January 2019, Ms Auerbach-Byrne was contacted by St Helen’s Council regarding overpayments made to her following the termination of her employment at Rainhill High School. On 1 December 2019, Ms Auerbach-Byrne attended a police interview to investigate overpayments made to her which she had not repaid. On 23 December 2020, Ms Auerbach-Byrne was found guilty of retaining wrongful credit. 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. On 23 December 2020, you were convicted of retaining wrongful credit contrary to s24a of the Theft Act 1968. The panel were presented with the Certificates of Sentence which confirmed that Ms Auerbach-Byrne was convicted of retaining wrongful credit. Ms Auerbach-Byrne also admitted the allegation. The panel therefore found this allegation proven. 2. Your conduct as set out in allegation 1 was dishonest. The panel noted that the offence of which Ms Auerbach-Byrne was convicted required dishonesty to be proven as part of the test for that offence. Presented with evidence of 6 the conviction in the form of the Certificates of Sentence, together with Ms Auerbach- Byrne’s admission to this allegation, the panel found this allegation proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or conviction of a relevant offence Having found both of 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 Ms Auerbach-Byrne in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Ms Auerbach-Byrne was in breach of the following standards: o Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school. o Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. o 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 Ms Auerbach-Byrne fell significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. The panel also considered whether Ms Auerbach-Byrne’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 offences of fraud or serious dishonesty and/or theft from a person or other serious theft were 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 acknowledged that teachers are expected to follow and implement policies, and deal with issues with pupils, which involve the principle of honesty. The panel considered it would be difficult for a school to have confidence that a teacher could assist pupils to make the right judgements in respect of their conduct, and to fulfil aspects of their teaching role which require determinations of honesty, where a teacher’s own conduct had been shown to be seriously dishonest. 7 Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Ms Auerbach-Byrne was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. Turning to the issue of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Ms Auerbach-Byrne’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel again found that the offences of fraud or serious dishonesty and/or theft from a person or other serious theft were 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 panel noted that the advice is not intended to be exhaustive and there may be other behaviours that panels consider to be “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 Ms Auerbach-Byrne’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. Having found the facts of particulars 1 and 2 proved, the panel further found that Ms Auerbach-Byrne’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In considering whether Ms Auerbach-Byrne’s conviction at allegation 1 amounted to a relevant offence, the panel first had regard to the Teachers’ Standards. As set out above, the panel was satisfied that t