Mrs Jayne Geary

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 Jayne Geary

Teacher reference number: 3348372

Teacher's date of birth: 15 August 1964

Location teacher worked: Hampshire, south east

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 to 16 June 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 Jayne Geary, formerly employed in Hampshire, south east.

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 Jayne Geary: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 10 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Jayne Geary Teacher ref number: 3348372 Teacher date of birth: 15 August 1964 TRA reference: 17363 Date of determination: 16 June 2022 Former employer: Southlands School, Hants Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by video link on 13 to 16 June 2022, to consider the case of Mrs Jayne Geary. The panel members were Mr Clive Ruddle (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Roger Woods (former teacher panellist) and Mrs Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Claire Watson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mrs Jayne Geary was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, except for parts of the hearing that were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 12 April 2022. It was alleged that Mrs Jayne Geary was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a Teacher at Southlands School between April 2015 and April 2017: 1. She failed to maintain professional boundaries in respect of one or more pupils, including Pupil A, by: a. Asking one or more members of staff to leave the room so that she could be alone with him; b. Giving him chocolate and/or biscuits in exchange for following her instructions; c. Contacting him and/or his mother via email on one or more occasions; d. Allowing him into her home on one or more occasions, including on or around 7 April 2014. 2. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1c and/or 1d amount to a failure to comply with the terms of her suspension issued on or around 13 March 2017. 3. She engaged in inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour on one or more occasions, including by; a. making negative and/or critical comments within e-mail correspondence sent to her colleagues and/or parents; b. making negative and/or critical comments about one or more of her colleagues in discussions with pupils and/or parents; c. walking out of meetings on one or more occasions. Mrs Jayne Geary did not admit the facts of the allegations or that those facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was provided with a bundle of documents by the presenting officer, relating to attempts to contact Mrs Geary. Those documents were not served in accordance with the 5 requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel decided whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer, that the documents related to communication with Mrs Geary and were directly related to the panel’s decision as to whether to proceed in Mrs Geary’s absence. Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that the documents were relevant to the case. With regard to the overall question of fairness, the panel noted that the documents related to recent direct attempts to communicate with Mrs Geary, and do not relate to the allegations themselves. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the documents. The panel was satisfied that TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 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 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 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 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, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba and Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took into account the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1. The panel was satisfied that Mrs Geary was aware of the case, as she had previously engaged with the TRA and provided a written response. The panel noted that 8 weeks’ notice of the current proceedings had been given and was sent to an address to which the teacher has previously responded to, which was her last known address. The panel heard from the presenting officer as to the attempts made to contact Mrs Geary and to trace alternative addresses. The panel noted that attempts to 6 contact Mrs Geary by email had been unsuccessful, and letters sent to a previous known address were returned to sender. However, the panel noted that some letters had been delivered and signed for by ‘Geary’ or by ‘Jayne’. 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. The panel did not consider that an adjournment would result in the teacher attending voluntarily. The panel noted that the hearing was previously scheduled in 2020 and again in 2021. The panel also noted that Mrs Geary had withdrawn her consent for the TRA and the presenting officer’s firm to contact her by email. Given the lack of engagement from Mrs Geary since 2020, the panel did not consider that an adjournment would result in further engagement from Mrs Geary. Mrs Geary had not expressed any wish to adjourn or to obtain legal representation. The panel had the benefit of representations made by the teacher and was able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel had the teacher’s evidence addressing mitigation and was able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon were to be called to give evidence and the panel can test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel may 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 has discharged the burden of proof. The panel was 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. [REDACTED] 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. The panel also noted that there are witnesses present at the hearing, who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and distressing for them to return again. Delaying the case for a further period of time may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. 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; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on 7 balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing. Amending the allegations An application was made by the presenting officer to amend the Notice of Proceedings by amending allegation 1d to read ‘April 2017’. The panel had 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, and the parties were afforded that opportunity. The panel exercised caution given that it had decided to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that the amendment proposed, being a correction of a typographical error, did not change the nature, scope or seriousness