Miss Laura Telford

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 Laura Telford

Location teacher worked: Berkshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 June 2024 to 14 June 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 Laura Telford, formerly employed in Berkshire, South East 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 Laura Telford: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Laura Telford TRA reference: 18923 Date of determination: 14 June 2024 Former employer: The Holt School, Wokingham, Berkshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 and 14 June 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Miss Laura Telford. The panel members were Mr Richard Young (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Carolyn Roberts (teacher panellist) and Mrs Shelley Barlow Ward (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Hesleton of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Miss Laura Telford was present and was represented Mr Jerome Burch of counsel. The hearing was recorded and took place in public save that the evidence of Miss Telford and parts of the submissions were heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 March 2024. It was alleged that Miss Laura Telford was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 2 January 2020, she was convicted of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in her breath, blood or urine exceeded the prescribed limit on 5 July 2019 contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(1)(a) and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. 2. On or around 2 January 2020, she was convicted of [REDACTED] (a relevant offence) on 5 July 2019 contrary to [REDACTED]. Miss Telford admitted that she was convicted of the offences concerned and further admitted that the convictions were for relevant offences. Preliminary applications Application to admit late documents The panel considered an application on behalf of Miss Telford for the admission of documents not served more than four weeks in advance of the hearing. This consisted of an additional 30 pages of documents. Ms Hesleton made no objection to the application and the panel agreed to admit the additional documents. Application for part of hearing to take place in private The panel considered an application on behalf of Miss Telford that her evidence be given in private. No objection was made to this application on behalf the TRA. The panel determined that Miss Telford be permitted to give the whole of her evidence in private. The panel was satisfied that this would enable Miss Telford to provide her best evidence in relation to matters of a sensitive personal nature in respect of which her rights of privacy outweighed the public interest. The hearing would otherwise take place in public, save that the panel would go into private session to hear submissions in relation to the two areas identified by Mr Jerome Burch. Summary of evidence 5 Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 5 to 6 Section 2: Notice of referral response, statement of agreed facts and notice of proceedings – pages 8 to 43 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 45 to 147 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 149 to 166 In addition, the panel agreed to accept further documents submitted on behalf of Miss Telford comprising an additional 30 pages. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing and the additional documents 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 2018, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Miss Laura Telford. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Between 1 September 2012 and 23 February 2020, Miss Laura Telford was employed as a part-time teacher of Mathematics at the Holt School (‘the School’). On 5 July 2019, Miss Telford was involved in a collision with another vehicle when driving her car. [REDACTED] was a passenger in the car at the time. After providing a positive breath test at the scene, Miss Telford was arrested and taken to the police station where she provided further samples of breath, which showed that the proportion of alcohol in her breath exceeded the prescribed limit to drive. On 12 July 2019 Miss Telford was interviewed under caution by a police officer from [REDACTED]. During the course of this interview, Miss Telford admitted that [REDACTED] had been in the car with her [REDACTED] when the collision occurred on 5 July 2019. During the interview, Miss Telford said that, prior to the collision, she had 6 spent the day with [REDACTED] at Thorpe Park and that she had only drunk one pint of cider during the day, but had drunk vodka the night before. Miss Telford also admitted buying a large bottle of vodka on her way to Thorpe Park and decanting some into a bottle of water. Miss Telford denied being drunk when at Thorpe Park and maintained that she had been capable of caring for [REDACTED] whilst there. However, when shown CCTV footage from Thorpe Park, Miss Telford acknowledged that she did appear to be intoxicated in the footage. On 2 January 2020, Miss Telford appeared at Berkshire Magistrates’ Court when she pleaded guilty to driving with excess alcohol and [REDACTED]. Her case was adjourned until 4 February 2020 when Miss Telford was sentenced for the offences. The sentence included a Community Order and disqualification from driving for 33 months. On 23 March 2020, Miss Telford resigned from her position at the School. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that you have been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 2 January 2020, you were convicted of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in your breath, blood or urine exceeded the prescribed limit on 5 July 2019 contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(1)(a) and Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Miss Telford admitted that she had been convicted of this offence and signed a statement of agreed facts to that effect. The panel was also provided with a memorandum of conviction from Berkshire Magistrates’ Court, which the panel was advised should be treated as conclusive proof of commission of the offence. This confirmed that the recorded level of alcohol in Miss Telford’s breath was 153 microgrammes in 100 millilitres of breath. The legal limit was 35 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath. The panel found allegation 1 proved. 2. On or around 2 January 2020, she was convicted of [REDACTED] (a relevant offence) on 5 July 2019 contrary to [REDACTED]. Miss Telford admitted that she had been convicted of this offence and signed a statement of agreed facts to that effect. The panel also treated the memorandum of conviction from Berkshire Magistrates’ Court as conclusive proof of commission of the offence. The panel noted that, in addition to being disqualified from driving for 33 months, Miss Telford was made the subject of a community order which contained alcohol treatment and unpaid work requirements for Miss Telford to meet by 3 February 2021. Miss Telford 7 was required to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work under the supervision of the responsible officer. She was also required to have [REDACTED]. The panel found allegation 2 proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proven, the panel went on to consider whether the convictions were for relevant offences. The panel noted that Miss Telford admitted that the convictions were for relevant offences. The panel took these admissions into account, but made its own determinations. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Telford, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Miss Telford was in breach of the following standard:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Miss Telford’s behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. This was a case concerning an offence of [REDACTED] and a serious driving offence, involving alcohol, which the Advice indicates are likely to amount to relevant offences. The panel took into account the [REDACTED] that Miss Telford was facing at the time which affected her decision-making. However, these issues, though significant, were outweighed by the fact she chose to drive with [REDACTED] in the car when she must have known that she was significantly over the legal limit. Furthermore, Miss Telford accepts that she consumed alcohol at the park and also took a bottle of v