Miss Jodie Bennett

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 Jodie Bennett

Location teacher worked: Bristol, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 6 to 7 February 2023 and 9 to 11 October 2024

Outcome type: no order made

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 Jodie Bennett , formerly employed in Bristol, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

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

2 Miss Jodie Bennett: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 3 Contents Introduction 4 Allegations 5 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 4 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Jodie Bennett TRA reference: 19812 Date of determination: 11 October 2024 Former employer: Kings Oak Academy, Bristol Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 6 to 7 February 2023 and on 9 to 11 October 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Miss Jodie Bennett. In February 2023, the panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Susan Ridge (lay panellist) and Mrs Maxine Cole (lay panellist). In October 2024, the panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Maxine Cole (lay panellist) and Mr Diarmuid Bunting (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons in February 2023 and Ms Claire Watson in October 2024, both of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Charlotte Watts of Browne Jacobson LLP. Miss Bennett was present and represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan of Cornwall Street Chambers. The hearing took place in public, except for parts of the hearing heard in private, and was recorded. 5 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 24 November 2022. It was alleged that Miss Bennett was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as the Head of English and Communications at Kings Oak Academy: 1. On or around 7 September 2020 she: a. brought alcohol onto school premises; b. consumed alcohol whilst on school premises and/or during school hours; c. informed one or more colleagues that she had not consumed alcohol and/or was under the influence of alcohol when this was not the case; d. was under the influence of alcohol whilst on school premises and/or during school hours; e. drove whilst intoxicated; f. did 1e. notwithstanding that the school had arranged for a taxi to take her home; 2. On or around 8 September 2020 she: a. brought alcohol onto school premises; b. was under the influence of alcohol whilst on school premises and/or during school hours; c. informed one or more colleagues that she had not brought alcohol to school when this was not the case; d. drove whilst intoxicated; e. did 2e. notwithstanding an instruction from the school not to drive her car; f. did 2a. – d. as may be found proven notwithstanding having been sent home for being intoxicated the previous day; 3. [REDACTED]: a. [REDACTED] 4. Informed the school on or around 15 December 2020 that she had ceased drinking alcohol in October 2020 when this was not the case; 5. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1c., 2c., 3. and/or 4. was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Miss Bennett admitted amended allegations, outlined further below, 1 in full, 2a., 2c., 2e., 2f., 4. and 5 (insofar as it relates to allegations 1c., 2c. and 4). Miss Bennett denied allegations 2b., 2d. and 3. 6 Miss Bennett admits that in respect of the allegations that are admitted, she is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Private hearing 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 Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This followed a request by the teacher that part of the hearing should be in private. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from part of 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 part of the hearing to be heard in private, was a reasonable one given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health and private life 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 private life. 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 part of the hearing. The panel was not satisfied that this would be a sufficient step given the concern that the third party could be identified even if anonymised. The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request ran contrary to the public interest. The panel was required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the case continued, any decision of the Secretary of State would also be in public. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. The panel therefore decided to exclude the public from parts of the hearing, relating to matters concerning the teacher’s health and allegation 3. 7 Amending the allegations An application was made by the presenting officer to amend the Notice of Proceedings by amending allegations 1e. and 2d. to state ‘drove having had an alcoholic drink’ or ‘drove having consumed an alcoholic drink’. An application was also made to remove the word ‘intoxicated’ from allegation 2f. and amend the allegation to ‘did 2a. – d. as may be found proven notwithstanding having been sent home due to having consumed alcohol the previous day’. The panel had the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel was required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher, and the parties have been afforded that opportunity. The teacher’s representative had consented to the application. The panel was concerned that this application was made at such a late stage in the proceedings, and exercised caution to ensure that there was no unfairness to the teacher. The panel had in mind that the interests of justice were in favour of this allegation being amended. The panel considered that the amendment proposed avoided the panel having to make a scientific judgment as to whether Miss Bennett was ‘intoxicated’. There was no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice was caused to the teacher. The teacher had provided her response to the allegations in advance of the hearing, and had accepted that she had a drink on 7 September 2020, but that she was not intoxicated. The panel did not consider her response would have been different had the allegation referred to ‘having had an alcoholic drink’, rather than ‘intoxicated’. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegation as proposed. At the outset of the resumed hearing, an application was made by the presenting officer to amend allegation 2e. to state ‘did allegation 2d. notwithstanding an instruction from the school not to drive your car’. The panel considered the reference to 2e. in the original drafting of the allegation to be a typographical error, and the amendment did not cause unfairness to the teacher. The panel had in mind that the interests of justice were in favour of this allegation being amended. Allegation 2e. was therefore amended to refer to allegation 2d. The allegations were therefore amended as follows: 1. On or around 7 September 2020 she: a. brought alcohol onto school premises; b. consumed alcohol whilst on school premises and/or during school hours; c. informed one or more colleagues that she had not consumed alcohol and/or was under the influence of alcohol when this was not the case; d. was under the influence of alcohol whilst on school premises and/or during school hours; 8 e. drove having consumed an alcoholic drink; f. did 1e. notwithstanding that the school had arranged for a taxi to take her home; 2. On or around 8 September 2020 she: a. brought alcohol onto school premises; b. was under the influence of alcohol whilst on school premises and/or during school hours; c. informed one or more colleagues that she had not brought alcohol to school when this was not the case; d. drove having consumed an alcoholic drink; e. did 2d. notwithstanding an instruction from the school not to drive her car; f. did 2a. – d. as may be found proven notwithstanding having been sent home due to having consumed an alcoholic drink the previous day; 3. [REDACTED] a. [REDACTED] 4. Informed