Miss Vivienne Williams

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 Vivienne Williams

Teacher reference number: 1671215

Teacher's date of birth: 2 May 1994

Location teacher worked: Wembley, London.

Date of professional conduct panel: 21 February 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 Vivienne Williams formerly employed in Wembley, London.

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 Vivienne Williams: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Vivienne Williams Teacher ref number: 1671215 Teacher date of birth: 2 May 1994 TRA reference: 20088 Date of determination: 21 February 2025 Former employer: Elsley Primary School, Wembley Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 21 February 2025 via virtual means, to consider the case of Miss Williams. The panel members were Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Whitelock (lay panellist) and Ms Samantha Haslam (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Miss Williams 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 27 November 2024. It was alleged that Miss Williams was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 12 October 2023, she was convicted of the offences of: a. One or more counts of ‘conspire to bring/throw/otherwise convey a list A article into/out of a prison’ contrary to section 40B(1)(a) of the Prison Act 1952; b. ‘transmit/cause transmission of an image/sound from inside a prison for simultaneous reception outside’ contrary to section 40D(1)(b) of the Prison Act 1952; c. ‘possess/control article(s) for use in fraud(s)’ contrary to section 6 of the Fraud Act 2006. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations were not admitted. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had 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 Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession updated 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 [2003] 1 AC1 that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has 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 recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, 5 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 had sight of the notice of proceedings addressed to the teacher dated 27 November 2024 in the hearing bundle. The panel noted that no response to the notice of proceedings had been provided. However, the panel also had sight of a separate ‘proceeding in absence’ bundle provided by the presenting officer. The bundle contained a proof of delivery document, which showed that the notice of proceedings had been delivered on 28 November 2024 and signed for by “MISS VIVIENNE” (which matches the teacher’s first name). The panel also had sight of a letter from the presenting officer to the teacher dated 12 February 2025, asking the teacher to confirm that: (i) she voluntarily waived her right to attend the hearing, (ii) she was content for the panel to make a decision in her absence, and (iii) she understood that the panel may make findings against her, which may lead to the imposition of a prohibition order. The letter also stated that if the teacher did not respond, “the hearing may go ahead in [her] absence”. The panel noted that the teacher did not appear to have responded to this letter, but the panel also had sight of a proof of delivery document which showed that the letter was delivered on 13 February 2025 and signed for by “V. WILLIAMS” (which matches the teacher’s surname). Therefore, the panel was satisfied that the teacher was aware of the proceedings, and was also aware that the hearing would be proceeding in her absence. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. ii) The panel did not consider that an adjournment would result in the teacher attending voluntarily. iii) The panel noted that the teacher did not appear to be legally represented, nor had she appeared to have expressed a wish to have legal representation at the hearing. iv) The panel considered the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give her account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against her. The panel noted that this case concerned an allegation that the teacher had been convicted of a relevant offence. The panel noted that there were no witnesses being called to give evidence, and the only evidence 6 to be relied upon was contemporaneous documentary evidence. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence and considered that, were such gaps to arise during the course of the hearing, the panel would take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available, and in considering whether the presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof. The panel noted that it was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of it reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. v) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would 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 is said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at Elsley Primary School. The panel noted that the School would have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. vii) The panel noted that there were no witnesses to be called, and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses was not a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of her right to appear, and by taking such measures referred to above to address any unfairness that may be caused insofar as is possible; that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing as listed. Amending the allegations An application was made by the presenting officer to amend the Notice of Proceedings by amending the date of the alleged conviction from “12 October 2023” to “23 March 2023”. The panel noted that it has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel was required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher. The panel noted that it did not have any representations from the teacher. However, the panel had sight of a letter from the 7 presenting officer to the teacher dated 14 February 2025, setting out details of the proposed amendment and asking the teacher to provide any objections to the amendment by 20 February 2025. The panel also had sight of a proof of delivery document that had been signed for by a “V. WILLIAMS” (which is the teacher’s surname). As a result, the panel was satisfied that the teacher was aware of the application and proposed amendment, and had not responded. The panel considered that the amendment proposed, being the correction of an incorrect date reference did not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. In particular, the panel noted that the amendment was to correct a factual inaccuracy in respect of the date of Miss Williams’ alleged convictions. The panel did not consider that there would be any prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore there was no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. The panel decided to amend the allegations as proposed. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 3 to 8 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 10 to 52 The panel membe