Miss Talia Thoret

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 Talia Thoret

Location teacher worked: London, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 6-8 May 2025

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 Talia Thoret, formerly employed in London, 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 Talia Thoret: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel hearing decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Talia Thoret TRA reference: 20174 Date of determination: 08 May 2025 Former employer: The Jewish Free School, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 6-8 May 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Miss Thoret. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist) and Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Miss Thoret was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey (Counsel) of Cornwall Street Chambers. The hearing took place in private save that the panel’s decision was announced in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 04 December 2024. It was alleged that Miss Thoret was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: Whilst employed as Assistant Headteacher and Designated Safeguarding Lead at the Jewish Free School, Harrow (“School”) between 1 September 2007 and 31 August 2018; 1. She failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken with respect to a safeguarding disclosure [REDACTED], by: a. Failing to report the allegation to MASH and/or to the police. Miss Thoret accepted that she did not refer the matter described to MASH and/or the police but did not admit that there was a safeguarding disclosure or that she failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken. She also did not admit unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. [REDACTED] Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised Pupil List and Chronology – pages 5 to 8 Section 2: Notice of Referral, Proceedings and Response – pages 10 to 24 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 27 to 638 Section 4: Teacher Documents – pages 641 to 714 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. 5 Witnesses The presenting officer called no witnesses. The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the teacher: • Witness A – [REDACTED] and • Miss Thoret 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 Thoret was employed by the School as a teacher from 1989 until she retired in August 2018. At the material time, Miss Thoret was employed as Deputy Headteacher and Designated Safeguarding Lead. [REDACTED], Miss Thoret had a joint conversation with Pupil B and Pupil I. In or around 2021, after Miss Thoret had retired, the School commissioned an investigation into its safeguarding practices following a poor Ofsted report. As a result of that investigation, a concern was highlighted relating to the conversation Miss Thoret had had with Pupil B and Pupil I [REDACTED]. The matter was referred to the TRA in 2021. 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: Whilst employed as Assistant Headteacher and Designated Safeguarding Lead at the Jewish Free School, Harrow ‘the School’ between 1 September 2007 and 31 August 2018; 1. You failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken with respect to a safeguarding disclosure [REDACTED], by: a. Failing to report the allegation to MASH and/or to the police. Miss Thoret helpfully conceded in her oral evidence that Pupil I had made a disclosure to her [REDACTED] and that she had not reported the matter to the Multi Agency Safeguarding Hub (“MASH”) or to the police. The panel therefore considered the nature 6 of the disclosure and whether Miss Thoret should have reported it to MASH and/or the police. The documents within the bundle presented to the panel were not contested by either Miss Thoret or the TRA. [REDACTED]. The relevant evidence included three witness statements providing references in support of Miss Thoret’s character, statements of events made by pupils, and documents written by the independent investigator that the School had commissioned to review its safeguarding practices. On balance, the panel considered that the evidence was relevant and that it would be fair to admit it. The panel also noted that hearsay evidence should be treated with caution and bore in mind that it must consider what weight to attach to the evidence when making its findings of facts. In this case, there were no competing factors as the parties did not contest the evidence and, although it was not decisive or sole, the evidence did provide useful background context for the panel. The panel disregarded any findings of the independent investigator since it was for the panel to turn its own independent mind to the allegations before it, but documents provided were relevant so that the panel could see how the investigation was conducted. The witness statements referred to were of character evidence and were only relevant to the extent they pertained to Miss Thoret’s credibility or propensity to fail in her safeguarding duties. The panel had regard to a document entitled ‘Safeguarding Overview Sheet’ which described the nature of the relevant concern [REDACTED]. The document also confirmed that the lead person responsible for reviewing the record was Miss Thoret. The panel also had regard to the notes of the meeting between Pupil B, Pupil I and Miss Thoret, [REDACTED]. In addition to expanding on her understanding of the issue between Pupil B and Pupil I, Miss Thoret confirmed in oral evidence that she had typed this up from her handwritten notes at the time, and they were an accurate reflection of the handwritten notes. [REDACTED] Miss Thoret confirmed in oral evidence that immediately after the meeting with the pupils she went to discuss the matter with the Headteacher. She explained that this was the usual process as the headteacher kept a tight grasp of safeguarding matters in the School and, effectively, was the decision maker when it came to reporting safeguarding concerns to the local authority and/or other agencies. Miss Thoret explained that, at that time, she did consider there might have been a potential safeguarding concern. She also explained that the headteacher did not believe there was a safeguarding concern and, having listened to her rationale, Miss Thoret agreed. Miss Thoret also confirmed to the panel that this was a decision she still believed was correct. Miss Thoret also confirmed in oral evidence that had she disagreed with the headteacher, she would have reported the matter to the local authority anyway as the Designated Safeguarding Lead. This indicated to the panel that Miss Thoret was aware that she had authority to refer safeguarding matters externally. 7 The panel first considered whether the disclosure Pupil I made to Miss Thoret was a safeguarding issue. It was clear to the panel, based on the documentary evidence and Miss Thoret’s witness account, that the School implemented a child-centred approach – whereby they sought to prioritise what was in the best interests of the child at all times. The School had a practice of using restorative justice as a means to resolve pupil conflict and behaviour issues. It was also clear from the School’s Safeguarding and Child Protection Policy that the School considered safeguarding to be the responsibility of all staff, which reflects the guidance set out in Keeping Children Safe in Education 2016 (“KCSIE”), which was in force at the material time. There was reference to all staff being able to make external safeguarding referrals, provided they kept the designated safeguarding lead updated. That being said, the same policy clearly stated that the designated safeguarding lead was responsible for referring all cases [REDACTED] to the local authority and other relevant agencies. The policy also stated that the Designated Safeguarding Lead should ensure the School policies were known and used appropriately. [REDACTED] The panel then considered the application of KCSIE. [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. In the panel’s view, the information provided to Miss Thoret should have been sufficient for her to recognise that this was a potential safeguarding issue and should have been reported accordingly, or at least to have warranted further investigation. [REDACTED] the panel also recognised that the guidance on this is quite clear – it is not necessary, nor is it often the case, that a child is aware that the conduct which has upset them is potentially deemed as a safeguarding issue. Miss Thoret explained in her oral evidence that [REDACTED] she and the headteacher concluded that, for those reasons, it would not be in the best interests of Pupil I to notify the local authorities of their disclosure. The panel accepted Miss Thoret’s evidence that she put a significant amount of trust in the advice of her headteacher. However, the panel considered that Miss Thoret’s lack of appreciation of what was expected of her as Designated Safeguarding Lead, in accordance with KCSIE, was concerning. The panel heard Miss Thoret’s evidence [REDACTED], but the panel found that, in the context of safeguarding, protecting a child’s welfare supersedes whether or not they are deemed Gillick competent. It was regrettable that the headteacher was not called to give oral evidence as this may have shed further light on whether the School had deviated from usual practice, by making the headteacher ultimately responsible for referring safeguarding matters to the local authorities as appropriate. The panel considered this point carefully in the absence of the headteacher’s evidence and, in doing so, reflected on the evidence given by Miss Thoret, the School’s own policies in place at the material time, and its own knowledge. Further, Witness A confirmed in evidence that whilst the headteacher wanted to be kept aware of matters in the School, members of the senior leadership team were empowered to make decisions. On balance, the panel found that in her role as Designated 8 Safeguarding Lead, Miss Thoret was responsible for referring safeguarding issues. This was supported by Miss Thoret’s own evidence, that if she had disagreed with the headteacher, she would have referred the matter anyway. It was the panel’s view that Miss Thoret’s decision not to refer the matter to MASH and/or to the police was, although an error of judgment on her part, a failure. By not doing so, it meant that information was not passed to MASH which deprived them of the opportunity to investigate and consider whether any action was required. The panel was mindful of the scope of the allegation against Miss Thoret, but it was also important to consider the wider context to the chronology of events. [REDACTED]. For the reasons set out above, the panel found this allegation proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 Thoret, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Miss Thoret 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 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 Thoret, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of KCSIE. Specifically, the panel found that Miss Thoret failed to meet the expectations required of her in respect of managing referrals, as set out in 9 Annex B of KCSIE. Additionally, KCSIE makes clear that the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding remained with the Designated Safeguarding Lead. The panel also considered whether Miss Thoret’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 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 none of these offences was relevant. The panel noted that Miss Thoret’s failure was serious but it also considered the fact that she had sought advice from the headteacher of the School, who was considered by staff to be the more experienced safeguarding expert. In Miss Thoret’s oral evidence, she explained that the headteacher had requested that she be notified of all potential safeguarding concerns before any referral to external bodies was made. The panel heard evidence from Miss Thoret that the two consulted on whether to refer this matter as a safeguarding issue and, after careful consideration, the two agreed that it did not amount to a potential safeguarding issue. In the panel’s view, this was an error of judgment, but it was not a decision made without careful thought. For these reasons, the panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Miss Thoret amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was not satisfied that Miss Thoret was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Miss Thoret’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 Thoret’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that none of these offences were relevant. However, the panel considered that Miss Thoret’s failure to take appropriate safeguarding action was conduct that could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. 10 For these reasons, the panel found that Miss Thoret’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 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 maintenance of public confidence in the profession. In the light of the panel’s findings against Miss Thoret, which involved finding that she was guilty of a serious error of judgment that led to her failing to appropriately report a safeguarding issue, the panel considered carefully whether there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining her in the profession. The panel found that Miss Thoret had carefully considered the disclosure that had been made to her by Pupil I and had taken the step of discussing the matter with the executive headteacher, a senior member of staff who was trusted as being very experienced in terms of safeguarding. Miss Thoret was clear in oral evidence that she could have made the decision to refer externally but she agreed with the headteacher’s rationale for non-referral and decided not to do so. The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Thoret were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. In the panel’s view the profession is likely to be brought into disrepute because Miss Thoret, as the Designated Safeguarding Lead, had not considered the disclosure she had received to be a safeguarding matter that required further investigation. As noted, this was an error in judgment and contradicted the relevant guidance that was available at the time. This was not something that could reasonably be tolerated in the profession. The panel found that Miss Thoret’s failure amounted to conduct that could potentially bring the profession into disrepute, but there was no evidence that Miss Thoret had any history of failing to report safeguarding issues. As such, this appears to be an isolated incident. The panel heard submissions from Miss Thoret’s representative that her failure was a lapse in judgement but the panel found that it was a considered decision which 11 was incorrect. Miss Thoret also did not revisit her decision in light of a further incident involving Pupil B [REDACTED]. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to evaluate whether there was a public interest in retaining Miss Thoret in the profession. The panel considered that there was. The panel was provided with numerous witness statements, as well as oral testimony from Wi tness A, that all spoke of Miss Thoret’s integrity, ability as an educator and the highly professional approach with which she conducted herself during her employment. In particular, the panel noted that witnesses described Miss Thoret as “a strong teacher… with an ability to i nspire children”, “ she was a highly respected and professional leader, inspiring the confidence of both staff and students”, “she had a commitment to each and every student”, and “she had been responsible for impactful initiatives”. It was clear to the panel that Miss Thoret had positively impacted staff and students dur i ng her time in the teaching profession. The panel accepted that Miss Thoret had taken positive steps to improve the School’s safeguarding culture and safeguarding processes, which is evident in the School’s improved Ofsted rating during her tenure as Designated Safeguarding Lead. The panel noted that Miss Thoret is now retired but the panel considered that, if she were not, it would be in the public interest to retain her as a teacher. 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. For the reasons above, the panel did not find any reason to question Miss Thoret’s level of integrity and/ ethical standards. As has been set out above, this incident related to an error of judgement, relating to a singular disclosure made by one pupil. 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 Thoret. The panel took fur ther acco unt of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appr opriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • ser ious 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; • 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).12 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. The panel found that, although Miss Thoret’s actions were deliberate, in that she made a considered decision not to refer because she did not believe it to be a safeguarding concern, these actions were made in good faith. She also had a previously unblemished record and, although there was no suggestion she was acting under duress, the panel accepted that she placed a significant amount of trust in the headteacher’s assessment of the matter. Miss Thoret did have a previously good history, having demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both her personal and professional conduct and having contributed significantly to the education sector. Based on the evidence available, the panel accepted that the incident was out of character. The panel was impressed with Miss Thoret’s professionalism, which carried through into her efforts to engage in this professional conduct process. She appears to have engaged with the TRA throughout, instructed an independent legal adviser and travelled to the UK to participate in the hearing. The panel commended her willingness to engage, particularly in circumstances where she is no longer employed in the teaching profession. This demonstrated to the panel that Miss Thoret took both her professional reputation and this matter seriously. During the hearing, Miss Thoret indicated a willingness to reflect on her practice. She explained in evidence that, although she felt she had made the right decision at the time, she would accept the panel’s decision if the panel assessed her actions differently. She also confirmed that if similar situations arose in future she would refer externally. The panel was therefore satisfied that there was no, or very little, 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, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher and the profession as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. 13 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 the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel was not satisfied that Miss Thoret was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Miss Thoret should not be the subject of a prohibition order. The panel has recommended that the findings of conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Miss Thoret 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 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 Thoret involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education (KCSIE), in particular the panel said “Specifically, the panel found that Miss Thoret failed to meet the expectations required of her in respect of managing referrals, as set out in Annex B of KCSIE. Additionally, KCSIE makes clear that the ultimate responsibility for safeguarding remained with the Designated Safeguarding Lead.” The panel finds that the conduct of Miss Thoret fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a finding of a serious error of judgment that led to failing to appropriately report a safeguarding issue. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a 14 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 conduct likely to 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 Thoret and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children/safeguard pupils. The panel has observed, “In the panel’s view, the information provided to Miss Thoret should have been sufficient for her to recognise that this was a potential safeguarding issue and should have been reported accordingly, or at least to have warranted further investigation.” 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 the panel sets out as follows, “During the hearing, Miss Thoret indicated a willingness to reflect on her practice. She explained in evidence that, although she felt she had made the right decision at the time, she would accept the panel’s decision if the panel assessed her actions differently. She also confirmed that if similar situations arose in future she would refer externally. The panel was therefore satisfied that there was no, or very little, risk of repetition.” I have therefore given this element 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 observe, “The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Miss Thoret were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. In the panel’s view the profession is likely to be brought into disrepute because Miss Thoret, as the Designated Safeguarding Lead, had not considered the disclosure she had received to be a safeguarding matter that required further investigation. As noted, this was an error in judgment and contradicted the relevant guidance that was available at the time. This was not something that could reasonably be tolerated in the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of failing to report a serious safeguarding concern in this case and the impact that such a finding has 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.” 15 I have considered whether the publication of a finding of 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 Thoret and the panel comment “Miss Thoret did have a previously good history, having demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both her personal and professional conduct and having contributed significantly to the education sector. Based on the evidence available, the panel accepted that the incident was out of character. The panel was impressed with Miss Thoret’s professionalism, which carried through into her efforts to engage in this professional conduct process. She appears to have engaged with the TRA throughout, instructed an independent legal adviser and travelled to the UK to participate in the hearing. The panel commended her willingness to engage, particularly in circumstances where she is no longer employed in the teaching profession. This demonstrated to the panel that Miss Thoret took both her professional reputation and this matter seriously.” A prohibition order would prevent Miss Thoret 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 panel’s comments “The panel found that, although Miss Thoret’s actions were deliberate, in that she made a considered decision not to refer because she did not believe it to be a safeguarding concern, these actions were made in good faith. She also had a previously unblemished record and, although there was no suggestion she was acting under duress, the panel accepted that she placed a significant amount of trust in the headteacher’s assessment of the matter.” I have also placed considerable weight on the particular circumstances in this case, including the finding that “The panel found that Miss Thoret’s failure amounted to conduct that could potentially bring the profession into disrepute, but there was no evidence that Miss Thoret had any history of failing to report safeguarding issues. As such, this appears to be an isolated incident. The panel heard submissions from Miss Thoret’s representative that her failure was a lapse in judgement but the panel found that it was a considered decision which was incorrect. Miss Thoret also did not revisit her decision in light of a further incident involving Pupil B [REDACTED].” I have given weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Miss Thoret has made to the profession. In particular “The panel accepted that Miss Thoret had taken positive steps to improve the School’s safeguarding culture and safeguarding processes, which is evident in the School’s improved Ofsted rating during her tenure as Designated Safeguarding Lead. The panel noted that Miss Thoret is now 16 retired but the panel considered that, if she were not, it would be in the public interest to retain her as a teacher.” For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision maker: Patrick Carey Date: 15 May 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.