Mrs Aimee Jones

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: Mrs Aimee Jones

Teacher reference number: 1072519

Teacher's date of birth: 27 December 1985

Location teacher worked: County Durham, north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 November 2022

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 Mrs Aimee Jones, formerly employed in County Durham, north 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.

Mrs Aimee Jones: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Aimee Jones Teacher ref number: 1072519 Teacher date of birth: 27 December 1985 TRA reference: 19926 Date of determination: 4 November 2022 Former employer: Polam Hall School, County Durham Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 4 November 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mrs Aimee Jones. The panel members were Mr Oluremi Alabi (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist) and Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Rebecca Utton of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Stephen Ferson of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mrs Jones was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 25 August 2022. It was alleged that Mrs Jones was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 19 October 2021 she was convicted of four counts of abuse of position of trust/ engaging in sexual activity with a female, aged between 13 –17, where she did not believe the victim to be over the age of 18 contrary to section 16(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mrs Jones admitted the facts of allegation 1 and that those admitted facts amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the response to the Notice of Proceedings dated 2 September 2022. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mrs Jones was not present at the hearing nor was she represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mrs Jones. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to in it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mrs Jones in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel was satisfied that Mrs Jones was aware of the hearing. Mrs Jones had engaged in communications with the presenting officer and TRA where she had confirmed, on more than one occasion, that she did not intend to attend the hearing. The panel concluded that Mrs Jones’ absence was voluntary and that she was aware that the matter would proceed in her absence. The panel noted that Mrs Jones had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure her attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mrs Jones was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. 5 Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mrs Jones was neither present nor represented. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents. The presenting officer sought to admit a four page document entitled ‘Service Bundle’ which consisted of email communications between Kingsley Napley solicitors and Mrs Jones. These communications related to the service of the bundle of hearing documents. The panel noted that within the document of communications, Mrs Jones stated that she did not have any objections to the admissibility of the bundle of hearing documents. Mrs Jones further confirmed that she would not be attending the hearing nor providing any new information for the panel to consider. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant and the admission of them would not be prejudicial to Mrs Jones. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. 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 1 to 3 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 4 to 9 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 10 to 63 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages none provided In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: 6 • Service Bundle – pages 64 to 67 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses No witnesses were called to provide oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mrs Jones commenced employment with Polam Hall School (‘the School’) on 1 September 2016. On 19 March 2021, Mrs Jones was arrested at the School. Pupil A provided a statement to the police on 21 March 2021. Mrs Jones’ employment ceased at the School the following day, on 22 March 2021. On 26 March 2021, the [REDACTED], referred the matter to the TRA. On 19 October 2021, Mrs Jones was convicted at County Durham and Darlington Magistrates Court of four counts of abuse of position of trust/engaging in sexual activity with a female, aged between 13-17, where she did not believe the victim to be over the age of 18 contrary to section 16(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mrs Jones was later sentenced at Teesside Crown Court on 16 November 2021. 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: 1. On or around 19 October 2021 you were convicted of four counts of abuse of position of trust/ engaging in sexual activity with a female, aged between 13 –17, where you did not believe the victim to be over the age of 18 contrary to section 16(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 7 The panel noted that Mrs Jones admitted the particulars of allegation 1 as set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 2 September 2022. Further, it was admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Teesside Crown Court, which detailed that Mrs Jones had been convicted of four counts of abuse of position of trust/engaging in sexual activity with a female, aged between 13-17, where she did not believe the victim to be over the age of 18 contrary to section 16(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In respect of the allegations, Mrs Jones was sentenced at Teesside Crown Court on 16 November 2021 to 8 month’s imprisonment on each offence to run concurrently. In addition, she was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 10 years and ordered to pay a victim surcharge in the sum of £149. On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Jones, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mrs Jones was in breach of the following standards: • Teac hers 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 provision8 • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel concluded that Mrs Jones’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting as she had formed a relationship and engaged in sexual conduct