Miss Leanne Till

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 Leanne Till

Teacher reference number: 1650640

Teacher's date of birth: 24 May 1989

Location teacher worked: Salford, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 to 19 June 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 Leanne Till, formerly employed in Salford, 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.

Miss Leanne Till: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Leanne Till Teacher ref number: 1650640 Teacher date of birth: 24 May 1989 TRA reference: 20021 Date of determination: 19 June 2025 Former employer: Lark Hill Community Primary School, Salford Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 to 19 June 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Miss Leanne Till. The panel members were Mr Francis Murphy (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bev Williams (teacher panellist) and Dr Sian Rees-Evans (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr David Collins of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Miss Till was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of Cornwall Street Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 22 February 2025. It was alleged that Miss Till was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. While employed as a Year 1 classroom teacher at Lark Hill Community Primary School (“the School”) between 2019 and 2021, she failed to disclose to the School that she was or had been in a relationship with Person A, who had convictions for child sex offences. 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 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 23 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 24 to 25 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 26 to 30 Section 5: TRA documents – pages 31 to 165 Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 166 to 235 In addition, the panel agreed to accept a bundle of documents which contained the following character references – pages 236 to 242 • Character reference dated 12 June 2025 from Individual A • Character reference dated 13 June 2025 from Individual B • Character reference 14 June 2025 from Individual C • Character reference from Individual D, SENDCO and Inclusion Hub Teacher 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 consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (the “Procedures”). 5 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: • Witness A, head of Lark Hill Community Primary School (‘the School’). The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by Miss Till: • Witness B, Miss Till’s [REDACTED]. Miss Till was also present and gave oral evidence. 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 Till commenced employment at the School on 13 May 2019. On 6 January 2021, the School received a Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) referral made by a probation officer in relation to Miss Till’s long-term partner being [REDACTED] against children. [REDACTED]. Miss Till was invited to attend a suspension meeting to discuss the referral on 26 January 2021. The meeting was held on 28 January 2021 and the conclusion was to impose conditions, including that Miss Till: 1) was not to attend School and all work must be undertaken at home; 2) was not to undertake any live or Zoom teaching; 3) must refrain from undertaking welfare calls with pupils; and 4) must not contact any other work colleagues or any person involved with the matter under investigation. On 4 February 2021, a review strategy meeting was held, during which the LADO confirmed that a previous referral had been made to Tameside LADO when Miss Till had been an assistant at another school. On 8 March 2021, the School reopened to full capacity, but Miss Till was suspended due to the ongoing investigation. Miss Till was asked to attend a disciplinary hearing on 22 April 2021, and the School wrote to her to confirm that their employment had been terminated on 27 April 2021. A referral was received by the TRA on 26 May 2021. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. While employed as a Year 1 classroom teacher at Lark Hill Community Primary School (“the School”) between 2019 and 2021 you failed to disclose to the School that you were or had been in a relationship with Person A, who had convictions for child sex offences. Miss Till admitted the allegation as set out in the response to the notice of referral, signed by Miss Till on 3 February 2023. The panel noted the statement of agreed facts (‘the Statement’), which had not been signed by Miss Till. The Statement specified that Miss Till admitted that she was in a relationship with Person A between 2019 and July/August 2020, while she was working at the School. Miss Till further admitted that she knew that Person A had been convicted of child sex offences in 2010 and 2018 and that Person A had been placed on the Sex Offenders Register throughout the time she was working at the School. Miss Till also admitted that she did not disclose her relationship with Person A to the School. The panel noted that Miss Till’s representative, on her behalf, confirmed that Miss Till denied that this amounted to her having “failed” to disclose Person A’s conviction to the School, as she was under no duty to do so. Further, Miss Till denied that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct likely to bring the teaching profession into disrepute. The panel noted that the allegation related specifically to Miss Till’s failure to disclose her relationship, rather than the fact that she had a relationship outside of work. The panel considered the evidence presented to it in the bundle of documents. The panel considered Miss Till’s written statement and oral evidence. The panel noted that in her written statement and oral at the hearing Miss Till said that she had asked numerous people, including [REDACTED], whether she had a duty to disclose her relationship with Person A to the School and that their answer had been that she had no duty to do so. The panel noted that in her written statement to the panel Miss Till stated that in 2018, Person A was arrested again for historical offences and was found guilty. She further wrote that, although she never formally ended the relationship, she told Person A she would not support him during his time in prison. She intended to end the relationship and 7 began distancing herself gradually, making excuses to reduce visits, cutting phone calls short, and deliberately booking visits at inconvenient times. She also accompanied his mother to visits but limited her own involvement. While Person A began to question the situation, she did not disclose the issues due to the control Person A had over her. The panel noted that Miss Till joined the School in May 2019 and had been on supply there since January 2019, and that during this time Person A was in prison. Miss Till wrote in her written statement that she was still trying to end the relationship at this time. The panel noted that Miss Till explained that, during the pandemic, she “built up enough strength to finally leave and in August 2020 [she] finally ended the relationship with [Person A]”. The panel noted in the investigatory interview meeting notes dated 3 February 2020, in particular that: • When Miss Till had been asked whether Person A was a risk to children she replied “Probably, if he was in a position with children alone, possibly”. • Miss Till when asked when the last time she spoke to him she stated: “Christmas, I think. I think he phoned in January, I was at the farm, I didn’t look who it was I just answered it, I think this was when he used the choice words, He tried to call Christmas day but I didn’t answer”. • She stated that, prior to breaking up, she had been in contact with him weekly or a couple of times a week and that “he rang everyday after breaking up, while he begged. Now he doesn’t ring at all.” • Miss Till confirmed that she was on the friends and family list whilst he was in custody, meaning he could phone her. • Miss Till had, in response to being asked why she did not inform the School about her relationship with Person A, said: “One, because he was in prison, so there was no rush, and two, because [she] wanted to get out” meaning from the relationship. • When Miss Till had been asked whether she thought she had a duty to inform the School of her relationship with Person A she stated “Probably, ideally that’s probably what should have happened. But knowing I was trying to leave him and him being inside, it did not feel imperative. He had the 2nd conviction and time in prison, and lockdown helped and talking to people – I would have split up anyway even without lock down.” 8 • When Miss Till had been asked why the School would be concerned, she responded that “If a teacher or memb