Unknown Teacher

monThe Secretary of State does not make these decisions herself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

9635583

Teacher's date of birth:

27 May 1960

Location teacher worked:

Essex, East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

6 to 7 February 2017

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 Jill Collins, formerly employed in Essex, East England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 6 to 7 February 2017.

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 Jill Collins: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2017 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 E. Decision and reasons 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Jill Collins Teacher ref number: 9635583 Teacher date of birth: 27 May 1960 NCTL case reference: 14747 Date of determination: 7 February 2017 Former employer: Castledon School, Essex County Council A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 6 to 7 February 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mrs Jill Collins. The panel members were Mr John Pemberton (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Hawkins (teacher panellist), and Ms Alison Platts (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Parminder Benning of Eversheds Sutherland LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ben Rich of Counsel briefed by Nabarro LLP. Mrs Jill Collins was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 9 November 2016. It was alleged that Mrs Jill Collins was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that she failed to maintain appropriate professional standards while working as a teacher at Castledon School between 15 April 2013 and 23 October 2015; 1. On 18 May 2015 she was responsible for pupils whilst under the influence of alcohol; 2. When asked about the incident referred to at 1 above she said it was due to a bad reaction to migraine medication, or words to that effect, which she knew or ought to have known was untrue; 3. On 18 May 2015 she failed to comply with a management instruction to leave the school premises when instructed to do so; 4. She breached the terms of her suspension in that she contacted staff and/or parents and/or a pupil on: a. 18,19 and 20 May 2015; b. 5, 6, 13, 14 and 15 June 2015; c. 14,15,19 and 20 September 2015; 5. On a date or dates unknown she viewed inappropriate websites whilst responsible for a class of pupils, on one or more occasions; 6. She used her work email account to send communications regarding inappropriate materials including on 7 February and/or 25 February 2015. In the response to the Notice of Proceedings dated 7 December 2016 and in her response to the allegations dated 6 January 2017, Mrs Collins admitted the facts giving rise to allegations 1, 3, and 6. Mrs Collins also admitted the facts giving rise to allegations 4.a., 4.b., and 4.c., save for the contact with a pupil. Furthermore, Mrs Collins admitted that such actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 C. Preliminary applications Decision on Excluding the Public The panel has considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This follows a request by the teacher that the hearing should be in private. The panel has determined not to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11.3.b. of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57. of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel has taken into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. The panel has noted that there are concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health being placed in the public domain. The panel note that no evidence has been adduced which give reasons as to why the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel has balanced the reasons why the teacher has requested that the public be excluded against the competing reasons for which a public hearing is required. The panel notes that any departure from the general rule has to be no greater than the extent reasonably necessary and that interference for a limited period of the hearing is preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel has therefore considered whether there are any steps, short of excluding the public, that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s health, and considers that to the extent it becomes necessary during the course of the hearing to discuss such matters, the panel can consider at that stage whether to exclude the public from that portion of the hearing only. Admission of Documents The presenting officer made an application to admit into the evidence an email and attached letter from the teacher. The presenting officer stated that the National College had only recently received the email. The email and attached letter provide evidence that will assist the panel in reaching its decision when determining the application to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel had regard to paragraph 4.18. of the Procedures which provides the “panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered 6 relevant to the case”. In view of the nature and seriousness of the application, the panel held that the documents were relevant and would assist in determining the further application. Furthermore, the panel considered the need for fairness and noted that these are the teacher’s documents. Therefore, the panel has decided to admit the documents as pages 247 to 251. Proceeding in Absence As Mrs Collins was not in attendance, the panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in her absence. The panel notes that the National College initially served the Notice of Proceedings by DX courier on 26 September 2016 (pages 6 to 9 of the hearing bundle). Despite obtaining proof of delivery (page 10 of the hearing bundle), the Notice of Proceedings was then served by post to an alternative address on 9 November 2016, this being signed for by Mrs Collins (pages 15 to 20 of the hearing bundle). Mrs Collins responded to the Notice of Proceedings on 7 December 2016 (pages 21 to 24 of the hearing bundle) where she indicated that she did propose to attend the hearing. Having considered the factual evidence before it, the panel is satisfied that the National College has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19.a. to 19.c. of the Regulations. The panel is also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complies with paragraphs 4.11. and 4.12. of the Procedures. The panel has 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 understands 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. The panel also understands the requirement that it be only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. In making its decision, the panel has noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. As noted above, Mrs Collins has had more than 8 weeks’ notice of the hearing date and in fact responded to the Notice of Proceedings on 7 December 2016. It is apparent to the panel that Mrs Collins is aware of these proceedings. In addition, the panel had regard to the correspondence between Mrs Collins’ union representative and the NCTL’s adviser’s and the letter from Mrs Collins dated 2 February 2017, stating that she was “unable to attend the hearing” although no substantive reason was provided (pages 247 to 251 of the hearing bundle). Furthermore, there is no indication that an adjournment might result in Mrs Collins attending the 7 hearing at a later, indeed the letter from Mrs Collins requests that the hearing proceed in her absence. The panel therefore considers that Mrs Collins has waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. The panel has had regard to 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. However, the panel has the benefit of representations made by the teacher and is able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel has the teacher’s evidence addressing mitigation and is able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel has noted that all witnesses relied upon are 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 has 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 t