Mrs Kathryn Sharp

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 Kathryn Sharp

Location teacher worked: Hereford, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 to 13 June 2025

Outcome type: no order made

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 Kathryn Sharp, formerly employed in Hereford, West 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 Kathryn Sharp: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 14 Documents 14 Witnesses 15 Decision and reasons 15 Findings of fact 15 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 23 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 27 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Katheryn Sharp TRA reference: 23652 Date of determination: 13 June 2025 Former employer: Broadlands Primary School, Hereford Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 to 13 June 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mrs Katheryn Sharp. The panel members were Mrs Christine Cunniffe (teacher panellist – in the chair), Miss Wendy Shannon (lay panellist) and Mr Carl Lygo (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Anna Chestnutt, counsel at Lincoln House Chambers, instructed by Brabners LLP solicitors. Mrs Sharp was present and was not represented. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 5 March 2025. It was alleged that Mrs Sharp was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Broadlands Primary School (‘the School’): 1. On [REDACTED], she engaged in inappropriate contact with a six-year-old pupil (Pupil A) by: a) Slapping Pupil A on the face; b) Shouting at Pupil A ‘you mustn’t do that’ or words to that effect Mrs Sharp factually admitted allegation 1(a) in that she had contact with a six-year old but denied that she had engaged in inappropriate contact with a six-year-old, and denied allegation 1(b). She further denied that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as set out in the response to the notice of hearing, signed by Mrs Sharp on 1 April 2025. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (the “Procedures”). Preliminary applications Applications to admit additional documents Mrs Sharp’s application The panel considered a preliminary application from Mrs Sharp for the admission of documents. Mrs Sharp’s documents were: 1. Correspondence between Individual A and Brabners regarding the first allegation. 2. Email from Information Governance. 3. Email from School Federation - confirming all evidence has been deleted. 4. Individual A’s alleged timeline. 5. Individual A’s meeting notes with parents. 6. School phone call to LADO at 4.15pm - LADO records. 7. Correspondence with Brabners regarding Individual B’s Witness Statement. 8. An unredacted version of the Notice of Hearing. 5 The presenting officer did not object to this application, save for the admission of the unredacted Notice of Hearing dated 16 November 2025. Mrs Sharp submitted that some of the above documents had been agreed to be admitted at the Case Management Hearing on 27 May 2025. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. Some of the above documents, the subject of the application, had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures. The panel considered whether admitting the documents outlined above was appropriate and whether doing so was in the interests of a fair hearing. The panel considered that the first five documents were relevant to the allegations and issues to be determined, and that it was in the interests of a fair hearing for them to remain in the bundle. Regarding the unredacted version of the Notice of Hearing, the panel was also directed to paragraph 5.40 of the Procedures, which states: “If there is a dispute between the TRA and the teacher in relation to the relevance or admissibility of documents (i) a bundle of the disputed documents will be prepared by the party who seeks to rely on them and forwarded to the TRA three weeks prior to the professional conduct panel hearing (ii) the TRA will send a copy of the bundle of disputed documents to the other parties and the legal adviser to the panel no later than five working days prior to the professional conduct panel hearing; and (iii) at the start of the professional conduct panel hearing, or at a case management hearing, the party seeking to rely on the disputed documents must apply to the panel for a determination as to their relevance or admissibility.” The panel considered the submissions from the presenting officer that the unredacted version of the Notice of Hearing should not be admitted, as it contained the decision maker of the TRA’s conclusion on finding a case to answer and that this was a finding of fact in another setting and therefore should be inadmissible. 6 Mrs Sharp submitted that the unredacted Notice of Hearing should be admitted, as it was relevant and provided the reasoning behind the TRA’s decision that there was a case to answer. The panel acknowledged that findings of fact made in another setting are inadmissible, particularly where they reflect the conclusions of another decision-making body or a different stage of the same disciplinary process. The panel noted that it must make its own findings of fact independently. The presenting officer was questioned on why the decision of the police in this case, not to pursue Mrs Sharp further, was included within the bundle of documents but not the unredacted Notice of Hearing, to which the presenting officers explained that the TRA would have received the same information as placed before the panel. The panel considered that, while the unredacted Notice of Hearing dated 16 November 2025 was relevant, they had access to the same evidence as the original decision maker and were therefore able to reach their own conclusions. They also considered the issue of fairness to Mrs Sharp, noting that she could still present her case and make submissions regarding any inconsistencies in the evidence before the panel. The panel considered that Mrs Sharp could make any submissions that she considered to be relevant regarding the redaction of this document. The panel decided that the unredacted Notice of Hearing should not be admitted to preserve the integrity of its independent decision-making process. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle, with the exception of the unredacted Notice of Hearing dated 16 November 2025 which was not admitted or added to the bundle. The presenting officer’s application The panel also considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the late admission of a document. This was considered to be relevant to the hearing but had not been included in the bundle of documents. The presenting officer’s document was: • A Statement of Fitness for Work for Individual B dated 4 June 2025. The document was the subject of the application to admit hearsay evidence and had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the document should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures. 7 The panel heard representations from the presenting officer and teacher in respect of the application. The panel considered that the additional document was relevant to the hearsay application. Accordingly, the document was admitted. Application to exclude one public observer, namely [REDACTED] Mrs Sharp made an application for the named observer to be excluded from attending the Professional Conduct Panel hearing. She cited ongoing employment tribunal proceedings concerning [REDACTED] and referred to several ongoing investigations, including one involving Herefordshire Council and another concerning governance matters. Mrs Sharp also stated that the organisation [REDACTED] was also involved in the investigation of the ongoing School Federation process. She submitted that the observer was [REDACTED] and that she felt intimidated by their presence due to past events at the School. As a result, she expressed that she would be uncomfortable sharing sensitive matters or giving evidence openly in front of this individual. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer, who did not oppose the application and supported the exclusion of the observer. The presenting officer submitted that the individual could not be considered a member of the public due to their vested interest in the matter. The legal adviser referred the panel to paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the ‘Regulations’) and paragraph 5.85 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the ‘Procedures’) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. Under paragraph 11(3)(a) and 11(3)(b) of the Regulations state: “Requirement for hearings to be held in public 11.— (3) A professional conduct panel may exclude the public from a hearing or any part of a hearing— (a) where it appears to the panel to be in the interests of justice or the public interest to do so; or (b) where the teacher who is the subject of the case requests that the hearing or part of the hearing should be in private and the panel does not consider it to be contrary to the public interest to do so.” The panel was directed