Mrs Karen Bates:

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 Karen Bates:

Teacher reference number: 0660852

Teacher's date of birth: 6 September 1977

Location teacher worked: Norfolk, east of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 July 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 Karen Bates, formerly employed in Norfolk, east of 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 Karen Bates: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Karen Bates Teacher ref number: 0660852 Teacher date of birth: 6 September 1977 TRA reference: 19522 Date of determination: 18 July 2022 Former employer: Hellesdon High School, Norfolk Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 18 July 2022 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mrs Karen Bates. The panel members were Mr Jeremy Phillips QC (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Monique Harlin (teacher panellist) and Ms Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Rebecca Utton of Birketts LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Bates that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mrs Bates provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Ruth Miller of Fieldfisher, Mrs Bates or her representative Mr Kim Vollerthon of NASUWT. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 28 June 2022. It was alleged that Mrs Bates was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 13 December 2019, she was convicted of damaging property to the value of unknown but over five thousand pounds, belonging to Business A without lawful excuse, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged on or around 14 November 2019, contrary to sections 1(1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. 2. On or around 13 December 2019, she was convicted of assaulting Police Constable A, a constable in the execution of his duty on or around 14 November 2019, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. 3. On or around 13 December 2019 she was convicted of assaulting Police Constable B, an emergency worker, namely Police Constable, acting in the exercise of his functions as such a worker, by beating him, on or around 5 November 2019, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. 4. On or around 13 December 2019 she was convicted of assaulting Police Constable C, an emergency worker, namely Police Sergeant, acting in the exercise of his functions as such a worker, by beating him, on or around 5 November 2019, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. 5. On or around 13 December 2019 she was convicted of assaulting Police Constable D, an emergency worker, namely Police Constable, acting in the exercise of his functions as such a worker, by beating him, on or around 17 October 2019, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. 6. On or around 13 December 2019, she was convicted of, damaging property including a chest of drawers, blinds, two mirrors, drumkit, ornamental giraffe, lampshades, ornaments, wall, bedroom furniture, DVD player, oven, microwave, sundial to the value of over five thousand pounds, belonging to Person A without lawful excuse, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, on or around 5 November 2019, contrary to sections 1(1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. 5 Mrs Bates admitted the facts of allegations 1 to 6 and that her behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the response to the notice of referral dated 10 November 2021 and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mrs Bates on 2 February 2022. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 1 to 2 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 3 to 18 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 19 to 24 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 130 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 131 to 169 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mrs Bates and the presenting officer on 2 February 2022. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Bates for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. 6 Mrs Bates commenced employment as a teacher of humanities at Hellesdon High School (‘the School’) on 1 July 2007. On 17 October 2019, Mrs Bates assaulted Police Constable D while they were attending an incident. On 5 November 2019, Mrs Bates assaulted Police Constable B and Police Constable C while they were attending an incident in connection to property being damaged which belonged to Person A. Ms Bates assaulted Police Constable A, on 14 November 2019, while they were attending an incident relating to property being damaged at Business A. On 13 December, Mrs Bates was convicted and sentenced at Norfolk Magistrates Court of four counts of assaulting a police officer and two counts of property damage. On 27 February 2020 the School held an internal investigation meeting regarding Mrs Bates’ conduct. Mrs Bates and her representative were presenting during the meeting. On 21 August 2020, Mrs Bates ceased employment at the School. On 17 September 2020, the School referred the matter to the TRA. 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 13 December 2019, you were convicted of damaging property to the value of unknown but over five thousand pounds, belonging to Business A without lawful excuse, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged on or around 14 November 2019, contrary to sections 1(1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. 2. On or around 13 December 2019, you were convicted of assaulting Police Constable A, a constable in the execution of his duty on or around 14 November 2019, contrary to section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996. 3. On or around 13 December 2019 you were convicted of assaulting Police Constable B, an emergency worker, namely Police Constable, acting in the exercise of his functions as such a worker, by beating him, on or around 5 November 2019, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. 7 4. On or around 13 December 2019 you were convicted of assaulting Police Constable C, an emergency worker, namely Police Sergeant, acting in the exercise of his functions as such a worker, by beating him, on or around 5 November 2019, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. 5. On or around 13 December 2019 you were convicted of assaulting Police Constable D, an emergency worker, namely Police Constable, acting in the exercise of his functions as such a worker, by beating him, on or around 17 October 2019, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and section 1 of the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018. 6. On or around 13 December 2019, you were convicted of, damaging property including a chest of drawers, blinds, two mirrors, drumkit, ornamental giraffe, lampshades, ornaments, wall, bedroom furniture, DVD player, oven, microwave, sundial to the value of over five thousand pounds, belonging to Person A without lawful excuse, intending to destroy or damage such property or being reckless as to whether such property would be destroyed or damaged, on or around 5 November 2019, contrary to sections 1(1) and 4 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971. The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mrs Bates on 2 February 2022. In that statement of agreed facts, Mrs Bates admitted the particulars of allegations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Further, it was admitted by Mrs Bates that the facts of the allegations 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 circum