Miss Rebecca Betteridge

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Miss Rebecca Betteridge

Teacher reference number: 3740796

Teacher's date of birth: 20 January 1991

Location teacher worked: Crawley, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 7 to 8 March 2024

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 Rebecca Betteridge, formerly employed in Crawley, 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 Rebecca Betteridge: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 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 Rebecca Betteridge Teacher ref number: 3740796 Teacher date of birth: 20 January 1991 TRA reference: 21027 Date of determination: 8 March 2024 Former employer: Oriel High School, Crawley Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 7 March 2024 by virtual means, to consider the case of Miss Rebecca Betteridge. The panel members were Mr Tom Snowdon (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Dawn Hawkins (teacher panellist) and Mrs Jane Brothwood (lay 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 Georgina Tobolewska of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Miss Betteridge 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 hearing dated 20 December 2023. It was alleged that Miss Rebecca Betteridge was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Oriel High School, Crawley between around July 2016 and July 2020: 1. She failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken to safeguard Pupil A, including by: a. failing to disclose to the School that Pupil A emailed her on or around 25 March 2019 with the lyrics to the James Arthur song, “You walked into the room and now my heart has been stolen”, b. failing to disclose to the School that Pupil A told her that he loved her in or around May 2019; 2. She engaged in and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, including by: a. providing her personal email address to Pupil A in or around April 2019; b. engaging in email correspondence with Pupil A via her personal email address from around April 2019; c. engaging in correspondence with Pupil A by text message from around April 2019; 3. On or around December 2018 to May 2019 she engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil A, including by kissing Pupil A on one or more occasions; 4. Her conduct as referred to at 3 above. constituted a criminal offence, for which she accepted a caution in or around March 2020; 5. Her behaviour as may be found proven at 2. and 3. above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated; 6. Her conduct as may be found proven at 1. – 3. above was despite a concern being raised about Pupil A’s feelings towards her on/or around 19 March 2019. In Miss Betteridge’s response to the notice of hearing dated 5 January 2024, Miss Betteridge admitted all of the allegations and that she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. As Miss Betteridge did not attend the hearing and there was no statement of agreed facts, the hearing proceeded as a disputed hearing, but the admissions received from Miss Betteridge formed part of the evidence considered in this case. 5 Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered the presenting officer’s application as to whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the notice of hearing complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel has recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones. i) The panel noted that Miss Betteridge completed the response to the notice of hearing form and responded that she did not intend to be present at the hearing, nor did she intend to be represented at the hearing. The panel noted this response was consistent with an email sent by Miss Betteridge to the TRA on 27 April 2023 in which Miss Betteridge stated that she would “not be attending any hearings – please go ahead and complete this without my attendance.” The panel was also provided with a further email exchange relevant to the panel’s decision whether to proceed in absence, dated 28 April 2023. This contained a request from Miss Betteridge that only things that legally had to be sent to her be sent by email and that she would not be reading them. The panel therefore considers that the teacher waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. 6 ii) There was no indication that an adjournment might result in Miss Betteridge attending voluntarily, nor has she expressed any wish to adjourn in able to obtain legal representation. iii) The panel has the benefit of representations made by the teacher and is able to ascertain the lines of defence and mitigation. The panel noted that the witness relied upon by the TRA is to be called to give evidence and the panel can test that evidence in questioning that witness, considering such points as are favourable to Miss Betteridge, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel is also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. iv) The panel considered there was little risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the teacher. Miss Betteridge has been clear that she will not be in attendance and her reasons for this. v) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. vi) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at the School. The School had an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. vii) The panel also noted that there was one witness who was prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for this to be rearranged. Delaying the case further may impact upon the memory of that witness. . The panel considered that since: • Miss Betteridge had waived her right to appear; • there was no suggestion that an adjournment might facilitate her attendance; • the panel could exercise vigilance in making its decisions; • further delay could impact upon the memory of the witness to be called to give evidence; and • the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing today, 7 the panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Miss Betteridge. Admission of Late Document The presenting officer applied to admit an exchange between herself and Sussex Police dated between 24 April 2023 and 1 September 2023 consisting of 4 pages. The panel decided the evidence was relevant as it contained confirmation that redacted email exchanges disclosed by the police were between Miss Betteridge and “the student”, which the panel understood to be a reference to Pupil A. The panel then considered the question of fairness. The exchange had been provided to Miss Betteridge on 13 February 2024 and no response had been received from Miss Betteridge objecting or otherwise to its admission. The evidence was limited in its content and extended to only 4 pages. Miss Betteridge was a party to the underlying emails discussed in the exchange and admitted engaging with Pupil A via email. Whilst the email exchange with Sussex Police could have been included in the draft panel bundle at an earlier stage, the panel understood that enquiries had been ongoing with the School to obtain the unredacted emails and extended version of the CCTV footage referred to in the exchange. The panel considered that it was fair to admit the document. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 4 Section 2: Notice of hearing – pages 5 to 9 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 10 to 28 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 29