Mrs Justine Drury

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 Justine Drury

Teacher reference number: 9657268

Teacher's date of birth: 13 September 1972

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 November 2024 to 29 November 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 Justine Drury, formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands.

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 Justine Drury - Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 33 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 37 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Justine Drury Teacher ref number: 9657268 Teacher date of birth: 13 September 1972 TRA reference: 17748 Date of determination: 29 November 2024 Former employer: CP Riverside School (formerly Channeling Positivity), Nottingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 25 November 2024 to 29 November 2024 to consider the case of Mrs Drury. The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mrs Drury was not present at the hearing. Mrs Drury was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of the Reflective Practice at the case management hearing on 3 June 2024, but she was not represented at the professional misconduct panel hearing. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 11 July 2024. It was alleged that Mrs Drury was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst a teacher at Channeling Positivity (“the School”): 1. In advance of a residential ski trip which began on or about 29 January 2017 and ended on or about 4 February 2017, Mrs Drury did not: a) obtain written parental consent from all participating pupils; b) liaise sufficiently with the Local Authority and/or schools whose pupils attended the trip; c) undertake sufficient risk assessment; d) ensure appropriate staff to pupil ratios. 2. During a residential ski trip which began on or about 29 January 2017 and ended on or about 4 February 2017, Mrs Drury did not take sufficient steps to reduce the risk of inappropriate behaviour by pupils, including to seek to prevent: a) one or more pupils from engaging in sexual activity; b) one or more pupils from filming their engagement in sexual activity; c) one or more pupils from possessing knives; d) one or more pupils from shoplifting; e) one or more pupils from stealing alcohol; f) one or more pupils from consuming alcohol; g) one or more pupils from attending nightclubs unsupervised by an adult; h) an adult teacher sharing a room with a minor. 3. When made aware of sexual activity involving Pupil A during a residential ski trip on or about 29 January 2017, Mrs Drury failed to: a) address adequately safeguarding risks to Pupil A; b) take effective action to prevent further instances of sexual activity involving Pupil A during the trip. 4. After a residential ski trip which began on or about 29 January 2017 and ended on or about 4 February 2017, Mrs Drury did not disclose the seriousness of incidents occurring on the trip to: a) the School trustees, b) the Local Authority and/ or schools whose pupils were participating in the trip, 5 c) the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO). 5. By Mrs Drury’s conduct set out in paragraph 1 and/or 2 above she failed to adequately safeguard one or more of the pupils attending the residential ski trip: 6. By Mrs Drury’s conduct set out in paragraph 4, she failed to act with integrity. Mrs Drury’s representative informed the TRA on 10 September 2024 and 22 November 2024 that Mrs Drury would not be engaging with the proceedings. As such, Mrs Drury has neither admitted nor denied the facts of allegations 1 to 6 nor whether the facts of the allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. As Mrs Drury did not attend the hearing the allegations were treated as not admitted. Preliminary applications The panel noted the previous decision at a case management hearing (the “CMH”) which convened remotely on 3 June 2024. The CMH concerned an application made on behalf of Mrs Drury for discontinuance of proceedings. The panel noted that the application was rejected, however, the delay in the proceedings had been unacceptable and that a breach of Mrs Drury’s right to a fair hearing within a reasonable time pursuant to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights (“ECHR”) had occurred. The panel considered the following preliminary applications: Application to proceed in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mrs Drury. The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of Mrs Drury. 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 noted that the provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 (the “2018 Procedures”) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in May 2020’ (the “2020 Procedures”) should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirmed that it had applied the 2018 Procedures in this case. The panel noted that the Notice of Proceedings referred to certain provisions in the 2020 Procedures, rather than the 2018 provisions which apply in this case. The panel heard 6 submissions from the presenting officer that the relevant provisions in the 2020 Procedures were substantially the same in content as the corresponding 2018 Procedures. Whilst the paragraph references within the Notice of Proceedings were incorrect, the information provided to Mrs Drury regarding the timescales for submitting any document relied upon; that the parties should seek to agree a bundle; and the timescales for providing the agreed bundle all accorded with the requirements set out in the 2018 Procedures. The Notice of Proceedings also explained that documents submitted outside the requisite timescales could only be considered with the permission of the panel. This also accorded with the requirements of the 2018 Procedures. The panel was therefore satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with the requirements of 4.12 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003], 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 & Visvardis [2016]. In making its decision, the panel noted that Mrs Drury 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 [2003]. Mrs Drury’s representative informed the TRA by email on 10 September 2024 that Mrs Drury would not be attending the hearing nor “cooperating further with the process in any way”. Further on 22 November 2024, Mrs Drury’s representative stated in an email to the TRA that “Mrs Drury is no longer engaged with these proceedings”. The panel therefore considered that Mrs Drury had waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place and with the benefit of legal representation. There was no indication that Mrs Drury would attend if the hearing was adjourned and there was no indication that Mrs Drury intended to present any defence to the allegations, nor any mitigation. The panel considered that the risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of Mrs Drury was low, given the clear communication that she had declined to attend. The panel recognised that the allegations against Mrs Drury were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that she ought to be prohibited from teaching. 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. 7 Four witnesses were due to give evidence and therefore the effect of the delay on the memories of the witnesses is a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. However, the panel acknowledged the significant delay that has already taken place in bringing this case to a hearing. Further delay may, however, affect the witnesses’ engagement in the proceedings, impacting on the quality of evidence available, and the ability to test that witness evidence. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the 2018 Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mrs Drury. The panel considered that Mrs Drury had clearly waived he