Mrs Ernestina Quainoo

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 Ernestina Quainoo

Teacher reference number: 1860808

Teacher's date of birth: 27 September 1970

Location teacher worked: West Drayton, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 21 to23 August 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 Mrs Ernestina Quainoo formerly employed in West Drayton, 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.

Mrs Ernestina Quainoo: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Chronology 7 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Ernestina Quainoo Teacher ref number: 1860808 Teacher date of birth: 27 September 1970 TRA reference: 21956 Date of determination: 23 August 2024 Former employer: Cherry Lane Primary School, West Drayton Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened from 21 to 23 August 2024 by way of a virtual hearing to consider the case of Mrs Ernestina Quainoo. The panel members were Miss Sue Davies (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Richard Young (lay panellist) and Ms Amanda Godfrey (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Maddie Taylor of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mrs Quainoo 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 Hearing dated 5 June 2024 and as amended by a preliminary application. It was alleged that Mrs Quainoo was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a teacher: 1. In or around May 2019, she submitted an application form to Cherry Lane Primary School providing information relating to her conviction that was not correct. 2. Her conduct at paragraph 1: a. was dishonest; b. lacked integrity. In addition, it was also alleged that Mrs Quainoo has been convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 3. On or around 18 December 2007, she was convicted of “Assist Unlawful Immigration into EU Member State” on 26 July 2004, contrary to Immigration Act 1971 s25(1). Mrs Quainoo provided no admission of fact. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mrs Quainoo was not present at the hearing nor was she represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mrs Quainoo. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to within 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 Hearing had been sent to Mrs Quainoo in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). As part of the application, the panel also considered the admission of a 12-page bundle containing documents specifically pertaining to the application to proceed in the absence of Mrs Quainoo. 5 The panel received legal advice on the admissibility of the documents, including relevance, appropriateness and fairness. The panel noted that all of the documents were emails or correspondence with Mrs Quainoo (with the exception of one email containing a tracking number to confirm a postal delivery to Mrs Quainoo had been successful), meaning that she had seen the documents before. The panel also noted that many of the documents had been created after the Notice of Hearing was sent, and they therefore could not have been disclosed at that time. The panel resolved to admit the documents as they would be specifically assistive in determining whether to proceed in Mrs Quainoo’s absence. The panel noted an email from Mrs Quainoo on 11 July 2024 in which she stated, “I would like to confirm that I will not be present or join in the hearing.” The panel also noted documents from the main bundle in which Mrs Quainoo stated, “I would like the TRA to consider my current statement”. The panel felt this was compelling evidence that Mrs Quainoo intended and expected the hearing to go ahead in her absence. The panel noted that Mrs Quainoo had actively engaged in the process prior to the hearing and had submitted a number of documents, which the panel would necessarily consider as part of its deliberations. This included a statement from Mrs Quainoo, which the panel was satisfied presented her case, although the panel concluded it was regrettable that Mrs Quainoo did not attend to assist further. The panel concluded that Mrs Quainoo’s absence was voluntary and that she was aware that the matter would proceed in her absence. The panel noted that Mrs Quainoo 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 Quainoo was unfit to attend the hearing, although the panel noted Mrs Quainoo’s conclusion to her statement that she did, “[REDACTED]”. However, the panel did not consider this was evidence that an adjournment would procure Mrs Quainoo’s attendance. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witness of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible, bearing in mind that Mrs Quainoo was neither present nor represented. 6 Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend allegation 1 to change “On or around July 2019” to “In or around May 2019”. The panel noted that Mrs Quainoo had not been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and scope of the allegation in that the amendment would merely clarify the date on which the alleged misconduct took place. The panel considered that the original drafting could in fact capture the intention of the allegation, however it felt it would be sensible to more specifically state the timeframe to which the allegation related. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendment did not amount to a material change to the allegations. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. The panel was of the view that, despite the fact Mrs Quainoo had not been informed of the amendments, granting the application for the proposed amendments would not cause unfairness and/or prejudice to her. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Quainoo was aware of the relevant application form to which the allegation related, and that her position would not be prejudiced or even affected by the proposed amendment. The panel concluded that the amendment was a correction to an administrative inaccuracy. Accordingly, the panel granted the application and considered the amended allegation, which is set out above. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 13 7 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 14 to 19 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 20 to 117 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 118 to 267. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • 12-page bundle relating to an application to proceed in Mrs Quainoo’s absence. 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 The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A – [REDACTED] Chronology On 26 July 2004, Mrs Quainoo moved to the United Kingdom from Ghana. On 18 December 2007, Mrs Quainoo was convicted of “Assist Unlawful Immigration into an EU Member State” contrary to s25(1) Immigration Act 1971 and on 11 July 2008, she was sentenced. On 15 May 2019, Mrs Quainoo was interviewed for a position as a class teacher at Cherry Lane Primary School (‘the School’). On 19 May 2019, Mrs Quainoo declared that she had a conviction regarding an immigration offence. On 8 July 2019, Mrs Quainoo started employment as a class teacher at the School. On 14 December 2022, the School was informed of news articles stating that Mrs Quainoo had been convicted of a child trafficking offence and a referral was made to Hillingdon LADO. On 15 December 2022, Mrs Quainoo was suspended pending an investigation. From 3 January 2023 onwards, the School conducted an internal investigation. On 19 February 2023, Mrs Quainoo resigned. On 18 April 2023, the School held a disciplinary inquiry. 8 On 5 May 2023, a referral was made to the TRA. Decision and reasons Findings of fact The panel made the following findings of fact: 1. In or around May 2019, you submitted an application form to Cherry Lane Primary School providing information relating to your conviction that was not correct. The panel considered that the key documentary evidence with respect to allegation 1