Miss Lianne Barclay

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 Lianne Barclay

Teacher reference number: 0937385

Teacher's date of birth: 28 September 1982

Location teacher worked: Warrington, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 to 19 November 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 Lianne Barclay formerly employed in Warrington, 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 Lianne Barclay: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Lianne Barclay Teacher ref number: 0937385 Teacher date of birth: 28 September 1982 TRA reference: 19667 Date of determination: 19 November 2025 Former employer: Bridgewater High School, Warrington Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 to 19 November 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Miss Lianne Barclay. The panel members were Mrs Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist) and Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Tamasin Graham of Lamb Building instructed by Capsticks LLP solicitors. Miss Barclay was not present 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 proceedings dated 7 August 2025. It was alleged that Miss Barclay was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while employed as a teacher at Bridgewater High School (“the School”): 1. Between around March and July 2019, she: a. Exchanged messages of a personal nature with Child A via WhatsApp, including relating to: i. her [Miss Barclay’s] sexuality; ii. Child A’s sexuality; iii. details of a sexual nature about her [Miss Barclay’s] private life b. Sent Child A one or more photographs of a personal and/or intimate nature; c. Sent Child A one or more messages as set out below, or words to that effect; i. can’t wait for a cuddle; ii. You’re mine; iii. Love you straight xx; iv. I love you. Straight; v. Love you homo; vi. I love you; vii. I will never stop loving you; viii. I won’t take your shit. But I WI love you always x [sic]; ix. I love you… I’m being a sulky bitch. I miss you x; x. Then text me kisses, and/or; xi. I love you so much x d. Sent Child A voice messages including: 5 i. “Hey baby don’t get them red bed sheets. I don’t like them red bed sheets, no, can you get the blue ones cos you know that your girlfriend’s favourite colour is blue. Yes.” ii. “I am a mother fucking princess don’t you dare call me a dickhead you get those sheets that I want or you ain’t sleeping in bed with me tonight bitch” e. On one or more occasions between 12 April and 13 July 2019, telephoned Child A and/or caused or allowed Child A to telephone her; 2. Her conduct at any or all of paragraph 1a – 1e above was: a. A failure to maintain appropriate boundaries with a child under the age of 16 b. Sexually motivated. In the response to the notice of referral on 31 May 2025, Miss Barclay made various admissions and denials as set out in the findings section below and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and /or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. However, in the absence of the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. 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 8 to 13 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 4 to 45 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements and exhibits – pages 46 to 668 Section 4: Other Teaching Regulation Agency documents (including media files provided separately) – pages 669 to 926 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 927 to 928 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • A service bundle of 18 pages consisting of correspondence with the teacher regarding the hearing; 6 • A bundle of 5 pages consisting of correspondence regarding the TRA’s application to rely upon Person E’s witness statement as hearsay evidence; • An exchange between Capsticks LLP and Miss Barclay ending on 17 November 2025 at 09:53 together with the enclosed image files; and • An exchange between Capsticks LLP and Miss Barclay ending on 17 November 2024 at 10:05. The above documents were admitted, as they were relevant to the presenting officer’s preliminary applications, and it was fair to admit them for the panel to understand the basis of the application and Miss Barclay’s position. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle and viewed the media files in advance of the hearing and read 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 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] at the time the complaint was received; Witness B – [REDACTED] at the time of the complaint and the School’s investigation; Witness C – [REDACTED] 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 Barclay commenced employment at the School as a teacher of food technology on 1 September 2017. On 17 July 2019, towards the end of the Summer term, a parent of a child who was not a pupil of the School contacted Witness B expressing concerns regarding Miss Barclay. The matter was also reported to the police. 7 Child A attended an “Achieving Best Evidence” (“ABE”) interview with the police on 28 August 2019. On 2 September 2019, before the pupils attended the School for the new academic year, Miss Barclay was suspended form the School. Miss Barclay attended an ABE interview with the police on 18 October 2019. On 31 August 2020, Miss Barclay resigned from her role at the School, but the School’s investigation continued. On 19 November 2020, the governing body of the School upheld the allegations. Miss Barclay was referred to the TRA on 2 December 2020. On 26 April 2021, the police investigation concluded with no further action. 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: While employed as a teacher at Bridgewater High School (“the School”): 1. Between around March and July 2019, you: a. Exchanged messages of a personal nature with Child A via WhatsApp, including relating to: i. your sexuality; Witness B stated that he was made aware of concerns in relation to Miss Barclay on 17 July 2019 when he received a telephone call from Person E, the [REDACTED] of Child A. He stated that Person E had informed him that inappropriate messages and videos were being shared by Miss Barclay with Child A. He stated that Person E told him that the inappropriate behaviour had started through Miss Barclay and Child A’s connection via the [REDACTED], that he had shared the information with the police, and had raised it with the [REDACTED]. He stated that following the phone call with Person E, Person E emailed the text messages he had referred to and two video files. Witness B exhibited screenshots of the text messages and the video files to his witness statement. Witness A exhibited to his witness statement text messages that were received on a memory stick from Child A’s mother. He explained that Child A’s mother had informed the School that the memory stick contained items downloaded from Child A’s mobile phone 8 namely the text messages between Miss Barclay and Child A and two video messages. These were received by the School on approximately 7 March 2020. In the transcript of Child A’s ABE police interview on 28 August 2019, Child A stated that she first sent a message to Miss Barclay at the end of March to ask if she was [REDACTED]. The panel noted that Child A was able to say that the messages began at the end of March 2019 as Child A recalled that she next received a message from Miss Barclay on 1 April 2019 checking that Child A had woken up as she had work experience commencing that day. The panel noted that Child A’s account was consistent with the screenshots of text messages seen by the panel. The panel was satisfied that the exchange of messages took place between March 2019, as referred to by child A, and July 2019 when Person E reported concerns to the School, albeit the messages in themselves did not bear any date. The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted an exchange at 22:35 in which Child A asked Miss Barclay “How long ago did you come out?” to which Miss Barclay responded immediately stating “[REDACTED]”, “I was horny”, “Small town”. The panel considered this to be an email of a personal nature which discussed Miss Barclay’s sexuality with Child A. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. ii. Child A’s sexuality; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted an exchange at 17:51 in which Miss Barclay asked Child A “Brilliant you gay yet??” and Child A responded “negative”, “perfectly straight”. The panel considered this to be an email of a personal nature which discussed Child A’s sexuality. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. iii. details of a sexual nature about her [Miss Barclay’s] private life The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted an exchange commencing at 23:10 in which Miss Barclay stated to Child A “I’m NOT QUIET”, and continued at 23:11 “Ha ha xxx”, “Noooooooooooo”, “I’m coming I’m coming”, “Fuck yes fuck yes”, then at 23:12 “That is me”, “And I scream”. Child A responded, “In your case book myself a bloody air bnb cause you’d go all night”. Miss Barclay responded at 23:13 “My neighbours hate me”, “I do”, “All night”, “when I’m this 9 horny”, “Yes all night”. This panel considered that Miss Barclay’s messages were referencing sexual experience, given the references to being “horny”. The panel also noted a separate exchange timed at 22:37 in which Miss Barclay stated, “I like sex”, “Sorry”, “Why I like younger ones”, “More Stanina”, “LOL”. The panel understood the message referring to “Stanina” to be a typographical error, and that the word was intended to say “Stamina” and that his could be inferred from the reference to sex with younger persons. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “no” confirming that she did not admit this allegation. The panel considered that irrespective of Miss Barclay’s intentions in respect of these messages, the content of the messages sent to Child A were by their very nature sexual and concerned Miss Barclay’s private life. The panel considered these messages to be of a personal nature. The panel found this allegation proven. b. Sent Child A one or more photographs of a personal and/or intimate nature; The panel noted that Miss Barclay forwarded a photograph to Child A of a woman’s breast partially covered by a hand. Miss Barclay was asked about this in the School’s investigation. She stated that she could not provide any context to what had been sent before the photograph. Miss Barclay stated that she did not know who the image was of and confirmed that it was not a photograph of Miss Barclay. She stated that she had been sent it and did not understand why she had been sent it. The panel noted that the photograph had then been sent to Child A without any explanation or context within the message itself. In Child A’s ABE police interview she stated that Miss Barclay had sent her a photo of a “boob”, that Child A did not know whose “boob” it was and that Miss Barclay did not tell her. She stated that there had been no context to the photograph that had been sent to her. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “no” confirming that she did not admit this allegation. In Miss Barclay’s representations for these proceedings, she has stated that a photograph of someone’s “covered chest is not sexual or intimate” and referenced looking in any art gallery. There was no indication that the photograph was being shared 10 as a piece of art, and Miss Barclay had not indicated that as a possible explanation previously. Miss Barclay had told the police that she did not know why she had sent it but that it had probably been because she had been sent it, and that she was “worried” by it, so forwarded it to Child A. Given that the photograph was of an intimate area of the body, the panel considered that Miss Barclay had sent Child A a photograph of a personal and intimate nature, albeit the panel had no evidence that the photograph was of Miss Barclay herself. The panel found this allegation proven. c. Sent Child A one or more messages as set out below, or words to that effect; i. can’t wait for a cuddle; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 21:08 which read “Can’t wait for a cuddle”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. ii. You’re mine; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 22:44 which read “You’re mine”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. iii. Love you straight xx; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 17:57 which read “Love you straight xx”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. iv. I love you. Straight; 11 The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 19:10 which read “I love you. Straight”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. v. Love you homo; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 18:11 which read “Love you homo”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. vi. I love you; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 18:11 which read “I love you”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. vii. I will never stop loving you; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 21:48 which read “I will never stop loving you”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. viii. I won’t take your shit. But I wi love you always x [sic]; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 21:59 which read “I won’t take your shit. But I wi love you always x”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. 12 The panel found this allegation proven. ix. I love you… I’m being a sulky bitch. I miss you x; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 20:54 which read “I love you….I’m being a sulky bitch. I miss you x”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. x. Then text me kisses, and/or; The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 21:23 which read “Then text me kisses”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “no” confirming that she did not admit this allegation. Irrespective of Miss Barclay’s denial of this allegation, the panel was satisfied having viewed the message that it had been sent by Miss Barclay. The panel found this allegation proven. xi. I love you so much x The panel viewed the text messages exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and noted a message from Miss Barclay at 21:24 which read “I love you so much x”. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. d. Sent Child A voice messages including: i. Hey baby don’t get them red bed sheets. I don’t like them red bed sheets, no, can you get the blue ones cos you know that your girlfriend’s favourite colour is blue. Yes.” The panel viewed the media files exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and heard Miss Barclay’s video message using the alleged words. 13 In response to the questions asked during the School’s investigation, Miss Barclay stated that she had previously had a video call with Child A and Child A’s mother when they were shopping for new bedsheets for Child A’s room at her mother’s house. Miss Barclay stated that she was joking and “winding her mum up with stupid voices”. She stated that she was pretending to be an “American from a chat show”. She went on to explain that “I support Chelsea” and that her favourite colour was blue. She stated that she hated red, but Child A liked red, so this was a joke. She stated that “girlfriend” is commonly used to describe a girl who is a friend. She stated that she was acting in the video “giving it sass and attitude so [she] used language like that.” The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. ii. “I am a mother fucking princess don’t you dare call me a dickhead you get those sheets that I want or you ain’t sleeping in bed with me tonight bitch” The panel viewed the media files exhibited by both Witness B and Witness A and heard Miss Barclay’s video message using the alleged words. In response to the questions asked during the School’s investigation, Miss Barclay stated this message had been sent on the same day as the previous one. She stated that again she was acting “being an American woman with an attitude” and that “if you look at my body language I am sassing it out with attitude and putting etc, I don’t talk like that in real life!” The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. e. On one or more occasions between 12 April and 13 July 2019, telephoned Child A and/or caused or allowed Child A to telephone her; The panel was provided with an email from the police dated 13 December 2021. In that email, the police officer provided responses to various questions asked by the firm instructed to investigate the allegations on behalf of the Teaching Regulation Agency. The police officer stated that she had provided a report of a call log showing phone calls between the two parties. The panel was provided with a call log which showed 130 WhatsApp calls between Miss Barclay and Child A between 12 April and 13 July 2019. It showed calls being made by Miss Barclay to Child A and vice versa. It also showed that Miss Barclay had answered calls she received from Child A. 14 In Child A’s ABE interview, Child A referenced various phone calls with Miss Barclay. She stated that when she had taken a week off school because she was ill, Miss Barclay “would phone me every day”, “she would phone me all during the school time.” She stated that she had first received a phone call from Miss Barclay “during April”, maybe the 12th” and that when Miss Barclay started phoning her, that was when she thought “wo this is a bit much”. Child A stated that Miss Barclay would sometimes send a message to Child A for Child A to phone her, or Miss Barclay would call her. She stated that it started off that there were phone calls every couple of days, and then it became more regular, so that by the end of April they were speaking to each other every day. The panel noted that call log accorded with Child A’s account. The first call took place on 12 April 2019 after Miss Barclay’s calls had been unanswered on several occasions. The next call occurred on 16 April 2019, then they spoke each day until 20 April 2019. Thereafter, they spoke on 22 April, 25 April, twice on 26 April, on 3 occasions on 27 April, 28 April, on 3 occasions on 30 April and the calls continued in a similar vein thereafter. The panel noted that the phone number on the call log matched the phone number depicted on the messages. Miss Barclay confirmed in her ABE police interview that it was her phone number. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. 2. Her conduct at any or all of paragraph 1a – 1e above was: a. A failure to maintain appropriate boundaries with a child under the age of 16 Witness A exhibited to his witness statement the School’s Online Safety Policy dated 3 October 2017 and the School’s Social Media Policy dated December 2017. Witness A confirmed in his oral evidence, that to the best of his knowledge, these were the policies in force at the time of the alleged conduct. Witness B exhibited to his witness statement the School’s Social Media Policy. Witness B confirmed in his oral evidence that he had exhibited this to his statement as it was the most up to date policy at the time of the alleged conduct. He stated that the policy had been developed at a time that social media was developing, and that around 2019 this was a much bigger topic of conversation with more signposting to the policy than there would be today. Witness B exhibited to his witness statement Miss Barclay’s training record. The panel noted that neither the School’s Online Safety Policy nor the School’s Social Media Policy were amongst the policies that Miss Barclay signed on 10 September 2017 to confirm that she had received. This corresponded with the policies having been introduced 15 shortly after the 2017 INSET day at the start of the academic year, and corroborated Witness B’s evidence that the policies, being new, would have been signposted to staff and discussed. Miss Barclay’s training record did confirm that she had read and understood the version of statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education that was applicable at the time. Witness B also confirmed that Teachers Standards (both part one and two) were reviewed during the appraisal process which ran from October to October each year. The panel noted that the Online Safety Policy explicitly stated that it applied to all members of the school community both in and out of the School, and that this was pertinent to online safety incidents which take place outside of the School but which are linked to membership of the School. The panel noted that the policy referenced staff incidents as including “Using personal email / social networking / instant messaging / text messaging to carrying out digital communications with students / pupils.” The policy also stated that the school permits “reasonable and appropriate” access to private social media sites. The panel also noted that the School’s Social Media policy stated, “Staff members are strongly advised to not have contact through any personal social medium with any pupil, whether from Bridgewater High School or any other school, unless the pupils are family members.” Person E stated in his witness statement that Child A was [REDACTED]. The panel noted that during Child A’s ABE police interview she stated on various occasions that she was aged [REDACTED] at the time of her contact with Miss Barclay. In the responses Miss Barclay gave during the School’s investigation, she confirmed that she believed Child A to have been [REDACTED] at the time. Whilst Child A was not a pupil of the School, she was a pupil elsewhere and Miss Barclay ought to have recognised that it was not appropriate use of social media to engage in communications with a child of the nature of that found proven. Furthermore, the panel considered that the voice messages contained inappropriate language to be used by a teacher towards a child. The quantity and timing of telephone communications, were also a breach of appropriate boundaries. The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “yes” confirming that she admitted this allegation. The panel found this allegation proven. b. Sexually motivated. 16 The panel noted from Miss Barclay’s response to the notice of referral that she submitted on 31 May 2025, that she responded “no” confirming that she did not admit this allegation. The panel considered Miss Barclay’s explanation as to her intention of her communications with Child A that she provided during the School’s investigation. She stated that Child A’s mother had asked if she could provide Child A with her number as Child A had been wanting to talk with her after they had spoken about Child A’s “[REDACTED]”. Miss Barclay explained that during this period she was, herself, [REDACTED]. She stated that she developed a friendship with Child A and since Child A was not her student, she did not link her role as a teacher to their conversations. With regard to specific exchanges, Miss Barclay provided various explanations. For example, with regard to the exchange referred to at 23:11 in 1a iii above, Miss Barclay stated that she had sent this because she had told Child A that she could not stay at Miss Barclay’s house, and to make it awkward for her to want to, telling Child A that she would have someone around. She stated that she sent this exchange to make Child A feel uncomfortable. With regard to the second exchange at 22:37 referred to in 1a iii above, Miss Barclay stated that she did like younger women, that her inner child was strong and younger women could “keep up with [her] crazy ways” that she never sits still, and am always busy, “you need stamina. LOL”, which indicated that it was a joke. Miss Barclay provided an explanation of the voice recordings as set out in allegations d. i. and ii. above. With regard to the exchange regarding “Love you straight”, “I love you. Straight”, “Love you homo” she stated that this meant that she was saying that she loved her in a “straight way”. She also stated that she thought she had got her words mixed up in the conversation, probably having several Whatsapp chats at the time. In Miss Barclay’s representations to this panel, she stated that she was considered a family friend, and Child A was like a little sister to her, and that she would “love a daughter like her”. She stated that “cuddling” is normal in the family unit and non-sexual cuddling is not inappropriate. The panel approached this allegation carefully given Miss Barclay’s explanation. The panel also noted that Child A had stated that she had stayed at Miss Barclay’s house, that Miss Barclay had asked her to sleep in her bed (as the other beds were not made up), but that she had woken in the morning, and Miss Barclay was on the sofa. Child A, however, made no suggestion that any sexual approach by Miss Barclay had taken place. 17 The panel also accepted Miss Barclay’s explanation in respect of the voice recordings left, as this appeared to be entirely plausible. Nevertheless, the panel carefully considered the way in which the messages developed. When the subject of Child A’s sexuality was brought up, there was no sign of any emotional support around the question, as might have been expected if Miss Barclay had understood her role to be to support Child A. At one point, Child A stated that her best friend had “cut [her] off completely”, and that she “struggle to come to terms with people leaving without emotions”. Despite this there was no response evident that offered support to Child A to deal with that situation. There is a lengthy series of messages from Miss Barclay as to why she was in a “bad mood” and another in which Miss Barclay referred to the “hurt” she had experienced 9 months previously. Neither of these exchanges needed to be shared with a child and which indicated some reliance developing by Miss Barclay upon Child A, rather than providing Child A with support. All of the sexual comments originated from Miss Barclay, save for one query from Child A asking when Miss Barclay had “come out”. The photograph of a partially covered breast sent by Miss Barclay was sent without any explanation at all. The panel considered that it could place reliance upon Child A’s ABE police interview since it was consistent with the documentary evidence the panel had seen. She stated that when Child A told Miss Barclay that she could not answer the phone, Miss Barclay would say that [REDACTED], and that Miss Barclay carried on messaging her every day. The panel considered the trajectory of the messages with the sexual content included by Miss Barclay escalating, yet there being no evidence of the emotional support that Miss Barclay claims to have been giving. To the contrary it appears that Miss Barclay was developing a reliance on Child A for support, and the messages gave a sense that Miss Barclay was coercing Child A to continue to engage in their communications. In light of this the panel considered that it was more likely that not that the messages were the stepping stones on the way to a sexual relationship, as least from the perspective of Miss Barclay. The panel found this allegation proven in respect of allegations 1a – c and 1e. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 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. 18 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 Barclay in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Miss Barclay was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Barclay in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Miss Barclay was in breach of the provisions requiring that a child centred approach is taken to safeguarding and to consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child. The panel was concerned that Miss Barclay failed to prevent impairment of Child A’s [REDACTED] or development given the adverse impact of Miss Barclay’s actions on Child A. Child A described the distress she experienced. Her [REDACTED] described that Child A’s [REDACTED]. Miss Barclay was required to be aware of systems within the School which support safeguarding. Her actions demonstrated a disregard for the Schools Social Media Policy and the School’s Online Safety Policy. The panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Miss Barclay, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel also considered whether Miss Barclay’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 19 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 found that the offence of sexual communication with a child was relevant. The panel noted that the allegations took place outside the education setting. As referred to above, Miss Barclay’s actions were in contravention of the School’s policies and called into question her role as a teacher. Her actions led to Child A being exposed to her behaviour in a harmful way. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Barclay 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 Barclay was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Miss Barclay’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 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 Barclay’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Miss Barclay was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of sexual communication with a child was relevant. Although Miss Barclay developed a relationship with Child A outside of the school environment, she was in a position of trust as a teacher. Child A stated that her mother had referenced that she trusted Miss Barclay, “especially as she’s a teacher”. The public would not expect a teacher to act in a manner harmful to the interests of a child whether that was inside or outside school. 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 misconduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. 20 For these reasons, the panel found that Miss Barclay’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public; the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public, given the serious findings of breaching appropriate boundaries and engaging in communications with Child A that were sexually motivated. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Barclay 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 Barclay was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 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 Barclay in the profession. Whilst there is evidence that Miss Barclay had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Miss Barclay in the profession, since her behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and she exploited the trust placed in her as a teacher. 21 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. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. 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 Barclay. 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; • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils); • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; and • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE). The panel also noted that panels should attach appropriate weight and seriousness to online behaviours including, but not limited to: online misconduct; facilitating online abuse; or facilitating inappropriate relationships. The panel considered that the online behaviours in this case were serious. 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. There was no evidence that Miss Barclay’s actions were not deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Miss Barclay was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. The panel noted that Miss Barclay stated 22 during the school’s investigation that she was “[REDACTED]” at the point she sent the messages at 1c.ix. and x. [REDACTED]. Miss Barclay did not demonstrate exceptionally high standards in her personal and professional conduct nor that she had contributed significantly to the education sector, other than having been a teacher with almost ten years of teaching experience at the time these matters came to light. There was no evidence that Miss Barclay had previously been subject to disciplinary proceedings or warnings. Witness A and Witness B confirmed that there had been no concerns prior to 2019 relating to Miss Barclay’s conduct towards pupils or children. Miss Barclay adduced no testimonial statements attesting to her character or ability as a teacher. The panel noted that at the time of Miss Barclay’s application to the School a reference was provided by a course director of food at a School at which Miss Barclay had previously been employed since September 2009. This stated that Miss Barclay was incredibly professional, hardworking, patient and caring. It concluded that the referee could “wholeheartedly say that Miss Barclay is a consummate professional who would be a huge asset to any school as I believe that she would fit in with any organisation and that no task or challenge set would be too great for her.” Both that referee and the headteacher provided a reference confirming that there had been no child protection issues, concerns or allegations whether investigated or not whilst Miss Barclay had been employed at that school, and they were not aware of any reason why Miss Barclay may not be a suitable person to work with children. In Miss Barclay’s representations for these proceedings, she stated that she wished to apologise for any upset, hurt and embarrassment her behaviour may have inflicted on the family of the child, the child and her own family. She stated that for the past five years awaiting this hearing she has held deep regret at her actions, and that this weighs heavily on her. She stated that she is no longer a teacher and never wishes to be a teacher again. Miss Barclay gave her opinion that “as a middle-aged homosexual woman these allegations are homophobic and discriminatory” and argued that sexual motivation was assumed not proven by the evidence presented. In Miss Barclay’s representations to the School, she stated that since this happened, she had moved on, grown as a person, healed and [REDACTED]. She referred to this having been the worst year of her life, but that she had a long time to reflect and felt that she had been punished enough. She stated that “this situation has put enormous stress [REDACTED], which has been exacerbated by the time scale it has taken for any action to be made and the prejudice I feel I have suffered in relation to my sexuality.” She stated that she extended her apologies to the family of Child A and anyone else who had been hurt during the process concluding “I am truly sorry.” 23 The panel was concerned by Miss Barclay’s representations to the panel regarding her understanding of her role as a teacher. She stated that “The child was not my student. In my professional capacity as a teacher, she was not my student. It’s unrealistic to expect teachers to be teachers 24/7.” The panel considered that Miss Barclay did not demonstrate insight that she was required to uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour both within and outside school. The panel noted that Miss Barclay had expressed remorse in that Miss Barclay had accepted that Child A and her family had suffered an impact. The panel also recognised that Miss Barclay had made some admissions, although she did not accept that her actions were sexually motivated. The panel did not consider that sufficient insight had been demonstrated into her actions, to her role as a teacher, or why she had acted in the manner found proven. The panel was concerned that some of the focus of her representations was upon the impact upon herself, the time that this case has taken to reach a conclusion and the prejudice she perceived. Despite that passage of time, Miss Barclay has not demonstrated that she has used the time to gain appropriate insight into her actions and to provide evidence that she has taken steps to reduce the risk of repetition. 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 Barclay 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 Barclay. The seriousness of the breach of appropriate boundaries which had a considerable impact on Child A’s welfare and academic progress was a significant factor 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. 24 These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons; and • any sexual misconduct involving a child. The panel noted that it had made findings that Miss Barclay acted in a manner that was sexually motivated, and that it has resulted in harm to Child A. 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. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. Miss Barclay significantly breached the trust placed in her; and she acted in a manner that manipulated Child A, causing a considerable adverse impact to her welfare and her academic studies. It took the courage of Child A to raise her concerns for the conduct to cease. The panel was concerned that despite the passage of time since these matters came to light, Miss Barclay has not used that time to gain appropriate insight into her actions and to provide evidence that she has taken steps to reduce the risk of repetition by developing appropriate strategies to gain awareness of her actions and moderate her behaviour. 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 provision 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. 25 The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Miss Lianne Barclay should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Miss Barclay is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Barclay involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Miss Barclay fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher failing to maintain appropriate boundaries with, and engaging in sexually motivated behaviour towards, a child. 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 and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Barclay, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. 26 In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel makes this observation: “There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public, given the serious findings of breaching appropriate boundaries and engaging in communications with Child A that were sexually motivated.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel noted that Miss Barclay had expressed remorse in that Miss Barclay had accepted that Child A and her family had suffered an impact. The panel also recognised that Miss Barclay had made some admissions, although she did not accept that her actions were sexually motivated. The panel did not consider that sufficient insight had been demonstrated into her actions, to her role as a teacher, or why she had acted in the manner found proven. The panel was concerned that some of the focus of her representations was upon the impact upon herself, the time that this case has taken to reach a conclusion and the prejudice she perceived. Despite that passage of time, Miss Barclay has not demonstrated that she has used the time to gain appropriate insight into her actions and to provide evidence that she has taken steps to reduce the risk of repetition.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Miss Barclay has developed full insight into her actions and their impact means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. 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 provides this observation: “Although Miss Barclay developed a relationship with Child A outside of the school environment, she was in a position of trust as a teacher. Child A stated that her mother had referenced that she trusted Miss Barclay, “especially as she’s a teacher”. The public would not expect a teacher to act in a manner harmful to the interests of a child whether that was inside or outside school. 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 misconduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher.” 27 I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher behaving towards a child in a manner that was sexually motivated in this case and the very negative impact that such a finding may 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 and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, 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. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Miss Barclay herself. The panel comments as follows: “Miss Barclay adduced no testimonial statements attesting to her character or ability as a teacher. The panel noted that at the time of Miss Barclay’s application to the School a reference was provided by a course director of food at a School at which Miss Barclay had previously been employed since September 2009. This stated that Miss Barclay was incredibly professional, hardworking, patient and caring. It concluded that the referee could “wholeheartedly say that Miss Barclay is a consummate professional who would be a huge asset to any school as I believe that she would fit in with any organisation and that no task or challenge set would be too great for her.” Both that referee and the headteacher provided a reference confirming that there had been no child protection issues, concerns or allegations whether investigated or not whilst Miss Barclay had been employed at that school, and they were not aware of any reason why Miss Barclay may not be a suitable person to work with children.” A prohibition order would prevent Miss Barclay 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 serious nature of the misconduct found by the panel and the lack of evidence that Miss Barclay has developed full insight into her behaviour and its impact. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Miss Barclay 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, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. 28 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. In doing so, it has referenced the Advice as follows: “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. These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons; and • any sexual misconduct involving a child.” I have considered the panel’s concluding remarks: “Miss Barclay significantly breached the trust placed in her; and she acted in a manner that manipulated Child A, causing a considerable adverse impact to her welfare and her academic studies. It took the courage of Child A to raise her concerns for the conduct to cease. The panel was concerned that despite the passage of time since these matters came to light, Miss Barclay has not used that time to gain appropriate insight into her actions and to provide evidence that she has taken steps to reduce the risk of repetition by developing appropriate strategies to gain awareness of her actions and moderate her behaviour. 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 provision for a review period.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the very serious nature of the misconduct found, which included a teacher abusing a position of trust and exhibiting sexually motivated behaviour towards a child, as well as the lack of evidence of insight and consequent risk of repetition. 29 I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Miss Lianne Barclay is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against her, I have decided that Miss Barclay shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of her eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Miss Barclay has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 24 November 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.