Miss Donna Haslam

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 Donna Haslam

Teacher reference number: 2362095

Teacher's date of birth: 04 April 1984

Location teacher worked: Essex, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 20 to 21 March 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 Donna Haslam, formerly employed in Essex, East of England.

Miss Donna Haslam: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witness 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel hearing decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Donna Haslam Teacher ref number: 2362095 Teacher date of birth: 4 April 1984 TRA reference: 22079 Date of determination: 21 March 2025 Former employer: Boleyn Park, Compass Community Schools, Essex (“School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 20 to 21 March 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Miss Donna Haslam. The panel members were Mr Chris Major (teacher panellist – in the Chair), Mrs Elizabeth Pollitt (teacher panellist) and Mrs Jane Brothwood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Alecsandra Manning-Rees of Counsel (5 St Andrew’s Hill) instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP (solicitors). Miss Haslam 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 proceedings dated 4 December 2024. It was alleged that Miss Haslam was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: She was convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On 6 November 2017, she was convicted of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. 2. On 22 February 2023, she was convicted of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. She is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher at Compass Community School Boleyn Park: 3. She failed to inform the School, in accordance with her employment agreement and/or relevant school policies that she was arrested and/or charged on or around 18 January 2023. 4. Her conduct as outlined at paragraph 3 was dishonest. Miss Haslam had not responded to the allegations and, as such, in the absence of a response from her the allegations were treated as not admitted. Preliminary applications The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 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. 5 The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher 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 [2003] 1 AC1. i) In advance of the hearing, the panel was provided with a service bundle that showed the TRA’s efforts to seek Miss Haslam’s engagement. The panel noted that whilst the TRA initially corresponded to outdated postal and email addresses, it did manage to speak with Miss Haslam by telephone on 15 July 2024 and 9 September 2024. Miss Haslam provided updated postal and email addresses which the TRA sent communications to thereafter. There was also evidence of Miss Haslam having responded by email, albeit these were limited to four replies, including an email from her dated 24 August 2024 in which she described the allegations against her as ‘malicious’. The panel also noted that the TRA had received a proof of delivery email receipt dated 16 October 2024. For clarity, the panel was directed to evidence showing proof of delivery of documents sent to Miss Haslam by post, including the Notice of Hearing dated 4 December 2024 having been served by post on 5 December 2024, but there was no evidence of her having responded by the same means. The panel also noted that Miss Haslam had agreed to be served documents by email too. The panel was therefore satisfied that Miss Haslam was aware of the allegations against her and the fact that this hearing was taking place on 20-21 March 2025. In those circumstances, the panel’s view was that Miss Haslam had deliberately absented herself from the hearing. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. ii) The panel saw no evidence that indicated that an adjournment of this hearing might result in Miss Haslam attending. Her correspondence with the TRA has been infrequent, and sparce in content, even once she had confirmed her correct email and postal addresses. Her email responses are limited to four replies in 2024. The panel’s opinion was that, based on the correspondence to date, Miss Haslam did not intend to meaningfully engage with this process. 6 iii) Additionally, the panel noted that this is a multi-day hearing, and there was likely to be a lengthy delay in rescheduling the hearing. iv) From Miss Haslam’s email correspondence with the TRA, the panel noted that she referred to seeking legal advice, however this appeared to be in the context of allegations relating to employment law, and not in respect of this professional conduct panel hearing. The panel was therefore of the view that Miss Haslam had some understanding of the concept of legal and professional conduct processes, such as this, and that she was able to seek legal assistance if she wanted to. She did not indicate any intention to obtain legal representation in an adjournment, and, in any event, she had ample time to do so before this hearing commenced. v) The panel considered the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give her account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against her. Unfortunately, the panel had not had the benefit of representations made by her, nor had it received any evidence addressing mitigation which could be taken into account. However, the panel had noted that all witnesses relied upon were called to give evidence. The panel tested that evidence in questioning the witness, considering such points as were favourable to the teacher, as were reasonably available on the evidence. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it. Had such gaps arisen during the course of the hearing, the panel may have taken such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should have been 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. vi) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. vii) 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 School (as well as one allegation that pre-dated her employment at the School). The School had an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. 7 viii) The panel also noted that there was one witness present at the hearing, who was prepared to give evidence, and that it would likely have been inconvenient and distressing for them to return again. Delaying the case may have impacted upon the memories of that witness. For the reasons above, 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 was possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would have caused 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. Decision on Excluding the Public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This followed submissions made by the presenting officer and on the panel’s own volition. 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. 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, is a reasonable one given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health and personal family matters being placed 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 confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s health and personal family matters. The panel considered that it would be proportionate and reasonable to only exclude the public from the hearing when matters relating to the teacher’s health and personal family matters were to be discussed. The panel also 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. Although there is little reference to third parties amongst the papers, the panel was not satisfied that this would be a sufficient step given that information that 8 was sought to be protected concerns personal issues relating to the teacher’s health and personal family matters. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 3 to 4 • Section 2: Notice of Hearing and Response – pages 5 to 12 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency Witness Statements – pages 13 to 16 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 17 to 467 • Section 5: Teacher documents – N/A The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (the “Procedures”). Witness The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the presenting officer: Witness A 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 3 March 2020 Miss Haslam was employed at the School as SEN Teacher. On or around 20 January 2023 the Police notified the School that on 18 January 2023 Miss Haslam had been arrested for dangerous driving and failing a breathalyser. On 23 January 2023 the LADO contacted the School to make enquiries about Miss Haslam’s arrest. The School subsequently began an internal investigation regarding Miss Haslam’s employment, [REDACTED]. 9 Miss Haslam’s employment was terminated by the School on 23 May 2023. The School referred the matter to the TRA on 5 June 2023. 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: You were convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On 6 November 2017, you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The panel has been provided with a copy of the memorandum of conviction and a print out of Miss Haslam’s criminal convictions from the Police National Computer. Both evidenced that Miss Haslam was convicted of the above offence on 6 November 2017 and sentenced to 12 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The panel noted that it is required to accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction unless exceptional circumstances apply and there was no indication there were exceptional circumstances in this case. The panel also noted the comments on the memorandum of conviction that Miss Haslam had a very high breath alcohol reading and was seriously impaired. For the above reason, the panel found this allegation proven. 2. On 22 February 2023, you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol, contrary to Section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The panel has been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction and a print out of Miss Haslam’s criminal convictions from the Police National Computer. Both evidence that Miss Haslam was convicted of the above offence on 22 February 2023 and sentenced to 16 weeks’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months. The panel noted that it is required to accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction unless exceptional circumstances apply and there was no indication there were exceptional circumstances in this case. The panel also noted the comments on the certificate of conviction that Miss Haslam had a high breath alcohol reading and had a previous conviction of a similar nature. For the above reason, the panel found this allegation proven. 10 Whilst working as a Teacher at Compass Community School Boleyn Park: 3. You failed to inform the School, in accordance with your employment agreement and/or relevant school policies that you were arrested and/or charged on or around 18 January 2023. The panel was provided with a copy of Miss Haslam’s employment agreement dated 1 November 2021 and found the following provisions relevant: i) ‘ensure that you maintain the highest standards of conduct at all times and conduct your personal and professional life in a way that does not damage or risk damaging our reputation, and in line with your signed Staff Code of Conduct’; ii) ‘report your own wrongdoing and any wrongdoing or prospective wrongdoing by any other employee or director of the Employer immediately on becoming aware of it’; iii) ‘you must familiarise yourself with and comply with our rules, policies and procedures’. In oral evidence, Witness A told the panel that Miss Haslam had at no point disclosed her arrest of 18 January 2023 to the School. As such, Miss Haslam had failed to report her wrongdoing. The panel was provided with a copy of a letter from the Police dated 20 January 2023, which was addressed to Witness A and notified the School that Miss Haslam (although the letter referred to Miss Haslam by her married name) had been arrested and charged, having been driving on the wrong side of the road and had subsequently failed a breathalyser test. Witness A also gave evidence that Miss Haslam had told Witness A [REDACTED]. The panel notes that there were copies of WhatsApp messages between Witness A and Miss Haslam supporting Witness A’s oral testimony. The messages show that Witness A asked Miss Haslam whether the Police were involved, to which Miss Haslam replied ‘probably, because I was blue lighted to hospital’. The panel understand ‘blue lighted’ to mean taken to hospital in an ambulance. The panel considers that Miss Haslam’s response was intended to deflect from Witness A’s question. The panel has seen no evidence to support and/or dispute Miss Haslam’s position that [REDACTED]. However, the panel has reviewed the relevant Police report which gives some helpful insight into the likely chronology of events. The report states that Miss Haslam was arrested at 5:27pm on 18 January 2023. She was taken to the Police station and was released on 19 January 2023 at 9:06am. She was then required to attend the Police station again for interview at 11am on Friday 20 January 2023. The report does not mention Miss Haslam being taken to hospital, [REDACTED] needing to be examined by a medical professional, and/or requiring medical attention while in custody. With that in mind, the panel considers 11 that Miss Haslam had sufficient time to notify the School of her arrest and she failed to do so. The panel was satisfied that by not doing so, she was in breach of her obligations in accordance with her employment agreement. For the above reason, the panel found this allegation proven. 4. Her conduct as outlined at paragraph 3 was dishonest. The panel was provided with evidence of the School’s internal disciplinary investigation. Whilst the panel is mindful that it must not treat the outcome of any such internal process as definitive for the purpose of these proceedings, it can consider the evidence made available during that investigation. The panel carefully considered whether Miss Haslam’s actions/omissions were dishonest. The panel finds that they do. Based on the evidence available, and the panel’s finding in respect of allegation 3, the panel has considered what it believes Miss Haslam’s intentions were. The panel considered that even if Miss Haslam was not able to notify the School of her arrest before the Police notified the School, which, for the avoidance of doubt, is not the panel’s finding, she had an opportunity to do so when Witness A contacted her on 20 January 2023 and she did not do so. In the panel’s opinion, this was deliberate on Miss Haslam’s part. On balance, the panel believe that it was likely that Miss Haslam would have been concerned about her previous conviction, [REDACTED], the fact that her actions may have amounted to a breach of her employment agreement, and that she may well have been embarrassed about the situation. These factors are likely to have played on her mind and resulted in her trying to conceal or otherwise deliberately avoiding telling her employer about her recent arrest. Having assessed Miss Haslam’s likely intentions, the panel then went on to consider whether the ordinary person would consider them to be dishonest. On balance, the panel find that they would. It is reasonable to expect that an ordinary person would disclose the arrest to their employer of their own volition, or at least when Witness A asked about the Police involvement via WhatsApp on 20 January 2023. For the reasons above, the panel found this allegation proven. 12 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 all 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 first considered whether the conduct of Miss Haslam, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Miss Haslam was in breach of the following standards: • 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. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel also considered whether Miss Haslam’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 considered that Miss Haslam’s attempts to conceal her arrest from the School, which the panel finds amounts to dishonest behaviour, is behaviour that falls short of what is expected of those in the teaching profession. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Haslam 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 Haslam was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Miss Haslam’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 13 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 Haslam’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel considered that Miss Haslam’s attempts to conceal her arrest from the School, which the panel finds amounts to dishonest behaviour, is behaviour which is of a serious nature that would likely have a negative impact on the public’s perception of the individual as a teacher. 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. For these reasons, the panel found that Miss Haslam’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In relation to the allegations of conviction of relevant offences, the panel first considered whether the conduct of Miss Haslam, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Miss Haslam was in breach of the following standards: • 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. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting. Miss Haslam has two convictions for the same offence, demonstrating a failure to appreciate the severity of her actions. The offences are serious in nature and could have had potentially fatal consequences. As such, she has put the public and herself at serious risk of harm. Individuals within the teaching profession are expected to set clear examples for those younger persons that look to them as role models, for guidance on how to behave in society. By repeatedly conducting herself illegally, and in a dangerous manner, Miss Haslam demonstrated a clear lack of appreciation of her actions and the potentially associated risks. This lack of awareness could transfer to her professional life, which is why the panel concluded her actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting. 14 The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Miss Haslam’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Miss Haslam’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, albeit that it was suspended, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving serious driving offences, particularly those involving alcohol or drugs, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel’s view is that the offences are serious, and the gravity of them is such that Miss Haslam’s actions could have had fatal consequences. Her behaviour is compounded by her aforementioned conduct following the event, which indicate her own understanding that the offences were serious. The panel was not provided with any evidence of mitigating circumstances. It is therefore not able to take into account Miss Haslam’s record as a teacher. [REDACTED] The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Miss Haslam’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and convictions of relevant offences, 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 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 15 protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In light of the panel’s findings against Miss Haslam, which involved convictions of relevant offences, namely driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, failing to notify the School of her arrest on 18 January 2023, and being dishonest in the same, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of members of the public. The two convictions were for the same offence, approximately six years apart, and it was therefore plausible to the panel that Miss Haslam could commit the same offence again; an offence which could have had fatal consequences if there were any members of the public at the scene at the material times. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Haslam 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 Haslam was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel considered that all of the allegations are relevant. The convictions are relevant for the reasons set out above. The allegations of failing to notify the School in breach of Miss Haslam’s employment agreement and in doing so acting dishonestly are relevant because the public expect members of the teaching profession to act with appropriate regard to their professional duties and with honesty. Miss Haslam’s failure to act in accordance with her obligations and required professional standards as a teacher was conduct that was outside that which could reasonable be tolerated in the panel’s view. 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 Haslam in the profession. The panel was not presented with any evidence about Miss Haslam‘s ability as an educator. The panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Miss Haslam 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. 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 Haslam. 16 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: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are ‘relevant matters’ for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosures; • 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; 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. The panel was provided with very limited evidence in mitigation. The panel noted that in the available evidence, Miss Haslam had given some background context to the convictions, [REDACTED]. However, based on the evidence available the panel concluded that Miss Haslam’s actions in respect of all allegations were deliberate and that she was not acting under duress. The panel had no evidence relating to Miss Haslam’s previous history in her capacity, or ability, as a teacher and so it was unable to consider whether she had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both her professional conduct and having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel did not accept that the second conviction was out of character for Miss Haslam because she had been convicted of the same offence in November 2017. The panel was presented with no evidence to suggest that Miss Haslam had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in her personal conduct. The panel was concerned that the conduct which led to both convictions was not isolated, or a momentary lapse of judgment, but instead it was indicative of Miss Haslam’s lack of regard for the law and safety of others. The panel had also been presented with limited evidence of insight or remorse. The panel noted from the summary of the School’s disciplinary meeting that Miss Haslam did not believe her actions outside of work were relevant to ‘her ability to perform her job function’. The panel found this concerning because it demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of her role as a teacher, and the professional standards she is bound by. The panel was also provided with emails Miss Haslam had sent to the TRA before the professional conduct panel hearing, in which she refuses to accept the allegations and 17 describes them as ‘malicious’ and ‘an abuse of power’. The panel was equally concerned by this. Two of the allegations related to convictions of relevant offences. There were undeniable convictions and on both occasions Miss Haslam had pleaded guilty. In describing the allegations (which included allegations that she had been convicted of relevant offences) as malicious, demonstrated to the panel that Miss Haslam did not have genuine insight or remorse into her actions and the possible consequences that could have arisen from them. 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 Haslam 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 Haslam. The seriousness of the offences for which she was convicted, and her dishonesty in failing to notify the School of her arrest on 18 January 2023 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. 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. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases 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 includes: • fraud or serious dishonesty. 18 The panel considered this category to be relevant to its finding in respect of allegations 3 and 4. The panel found that Miss Haslam had failed to notify the School of her arrest on 18 January 2023 and that her intentions for doing so were likely to be to try and conceal the fact, which the panel found to be dishonest. The panel noted that the lists given in the Advice are not intended to be exhaustive and it considered this case on its own individual merits, taking into account all the circumstances involved. The panel considered that Miss Haslam’s behaviour was particularly concerning when viewed as one picture. Miss Haslam was convicted on 6 November 2017 for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The offence was deemed so serious that she was given a suspended prison sentence and she was disqualified from driving. She disclosed this conviction to the School prior to her employment in 2020. On 18 January 2023 Miss Haslam was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. She was interviewed by the Police on 20 January 2023 and charged. She did not notify the School and when the School contacted Miss Haslam, she failed to disclose her arrest. On 22 February 2023 Miss Haslam was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The offence was deemed so serious that she was given a suspended prison sentence and she was disqualified from driving. The School then investigated the matter following its disciplinary procedure, during which Miss Haslam told the School that her actions outside of the workplace were not relevant to her duties as a teacher. With that context in mind, the panel assessed Miss Haslam’s conduct as being so serious that it considered a longer review period. However, in light of there being no persuasive mitigating circumstances presented to the panel, and Miss Haslam appearing not to have shown any remorse or insight into her actions, the panel considered that there was a real risk of Miss Haslam repeating her behaviour. As such, the panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a 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 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 and/or a relevant conviction. 19 The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Miss Donna Haslam should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Miss Haslam is in breach of the following standards: • 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. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel finds that the conduct of Miss Haslam fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher receiving two separate convictions for driving with excess alcohol, both of which resulted in sentences of imprisonment (albeit suspended). They also include a teacher acting in a way which was dishonest. 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, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and a relevant conviction 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 Haslam, 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. Although the drink-driving offences occurred outside of school and did not directly impact on pupils, the panel states the following: “In light of the panel’s findings against Miss Haslam, which involved convictions of relevant offences, namely driving whilst under the influence of alcohol, failing to notify the School of her arrest on 18 January 2023, and being dishonest in the same, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of members of the public. The two convictions were for the same offence, approximately six years apart, and it was therefore plausible to the panel that Miss Haslam could commit the same offence again; an offence which could have had fatal consequences if there were any members of the public at the scene at the material times.” 20 I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel had also been presented with limited evidence of insight or remorse. The panel noted from the summary of the School’s disciplinary meeting that Miss Haslam did not believe her actions outside of work were relevant to ‘her ability to perform her job function’. The panel found this concerning because it demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of her role as a teacher, and the professional standards she is bound by. The panel was also provided with emails Miss Haslam had sent to the TRA before the professional conduct panel hearing, in which she refuses to accept the allegations and describes them as ‘malicious’ and ‘an abuse of power’. The panel was equally concerned by this. Two of the allegations related to convictions of relevant offences. There were undeniable convictions and on both occasions Miss Haslam had pleaded guilty. In describing the allegations (which included allegations that she had been convicted of relevant offences) as malicious, demonstrated to the panel that Miss Haslam did not have genuine insight or remorse into her actions and the possible consequences that could have arisen from them.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence of insight and remorse on Miss Haslam’s part means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour. 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 records the following observation: “The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Miss Haslam’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher receiving separate convictions for driving with excess alcohol in this case and the impact that such a finding is likely to 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, conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, and a relevant conviction, 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. 21 I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Miss Haslam herself. The panel records the following: “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 Haslam in the profession. The panel was not presented with any evidence about Miss Haslam‘s ability as an educator. The panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Miss Haslam in the profession, since her behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher.” A prohibition order would prevent Miss Haslam 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 on the panel’s comments concerning the lack of evidence of insight or remorse exhibited by Miss Haslam, and the risk of repetition that this exposes. I have also noted the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct found. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Miss Haslam 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 or 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 that no provision should be made for a review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding remarks: “The panel noted that the lists given in the Advice are not intended to be exhaustive and it considered this case on its own individual merits, taking into account all the circumstances involved. The panel considered that Miss Haslam’s behaviour was particularly concerning when viewed as one picture. Miss Haslam was convicted on 6 November 2017 for driving while under the influence of alcohol. The offence was deemed so serious that she was given a suspended prison sentence and she was disqualified from driving. She disclosed this conviction to the School prior to her employment in 2020. On 18 January 2023 Miss Haslam was arrested for driving while under the influence of alcohol. She was interviewed by the Police on 20 January 2023 and charged. She did not notify the School and when the School contacted Miss 22 Haslam, she failed to disclose her arrest. On 22 February 2023 Miss Haslam was convicted of driving while under the influence of alcohol. The offence was deemed so serious that she was given a suspended prison sentence and she was disqualified from driving. The School then investigated the matter following its disciplinary procedure, during which Miss Haslam told the School that her actions outside of the workplace were not relevant to her duties as a teacher. With that context in mind, the panel assessed Miss Haslam’s conduct as being so serious that it considered a longer review period. However, in light of there being no persuasive mitigating circumstances presented to the panel, and Miss Haslam appearing not to have shown any remorse or insight into her actions, the panel considered that there was a real risk of Miss Haslam repeating her behaviour.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate response to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. The misconduct found by the panel in this case is undoubtedly very serious, as is the risk of repetition given the lack of evidence of remorse and insight on Miss Haslam’s part. However, in my judgment, to deny her the opportunity to develop and demonstrate that remorse and insight given the circumstances of this case and the possibility of mitigating factors would not be an appropriate response. In my view, a five-year review period would instead be a proportionate period to allow Miss Haslam to attain full insight into and remorse for her actions. This would include demonstrating that she has taken practical and sustained steps to limit any risk of repetition. I consider therefore that a five-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Miss Donna Haslam 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 March 2030, five 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 Haslam remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Miss Donna Haslam has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. 23 Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 24 March 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.