Mrs Lucy Lapthorne

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 Lucy Lapthorne

Location teacher worked: Cornwall, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 June 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 Lucy Lapthorne, formerly employed in Cornwall, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton Road

Coventry

CV1 2WT

Email misconduct.teacher@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mrs Lucy Lapthorne: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2024 2 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 10 Contents Introduction Allegations Preliminary applications Summary of evidence Documents Statement of agr eed facts Decision and reasons Findings of fact Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Lucy Lapthorne Teacher ref number: 0943925 Teacher date of birth: 1 January 1988 TRA reference: 21171 Date of determination: 17 June 2024 Former employer: [REDACTED] Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 17 June 2024 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mrs Lucy Lapthorne. The panel members were Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Kate Hurley (teacher panellist) and Ms Rachael Fidler (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Maddie Taylor 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 Lapthorne that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mrs Lapthorne provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted the allegations in full, and that the conduct admitted to represented unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Sophie Allen of Kingsley Napley LLP, Mrs Lapthorne or any representative for Mrs Lapthorne. 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 10 June 2024. It was alleged that Mrs Lapthorne was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that [REDACTED]: 1. Between or around [REDACTED], she engaged in a sexual relationship with Individual A. 2. Her conduct at paragraph 1 continued despite: a) Being spoken to [REDACTED] about setting boundaries [REDACTED]; b) Receiving [REDACTED] around additional guidance [REDACTED]. 3. Her conduct at paragraph 1 was sexually motivated. 4. On or around [REDACTED], she accepted a police caution in relation to the conduct as set out at paragraph 1 above, [REDACTED]. Preliminary applications Within the documents received from Mrs Lapthorne was a written application regarding privacy, anonymisation and redaction. The panel noted that as the meeting was held in private and with no observers from the press or public, a certain level of privacy had already been attained. Notwithstanding, the panel agreed to redact sensitive information relating to [REDACTED], as is standard practice in such processes. However, the panel concluded that the ultimate decision on anonymity (particularly in respect of the teacher’s name) and redaction is for the TRA and the panel was therefore unable to make a determination on this issue. The panel resolved to flag Mrs Lapthorne’s applications to the TRA for its consideration, along with the supporting paperwork provided by Mrs Lapthorne. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 4 to 6. 5 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 7 to 14. • Section 3: statement of agreed facts – pages 15 to 18. • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 209. • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 210 to 267. In addition, the panel agreed to accept a two-page document submitted to the TRA by Mrs Lapthorne and which was uploaded to the TRA’s portal on 14 June 2024, which contained her comments on the bundle. The panel members and the legal adviser confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting and the additional document admitted. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mrs Lapthorne on 8 May 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 20 May 2024. The panel noted that Mrs Lapthorne admitted allegations 1, 2(a), 2(b), 3 and 4 in the statement of agreed facts, and that she further admitted that her conduct in respect of the allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 Lapthorne 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. [REDACTED]. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 6 1. Between or around [REDACTED], you engaged in a sexual relationship with Individual A. The panel noted that Mrs Lapthorne had already admitted in the statement of agreed facts that this alleged conduct had occurred. However, the panel was aware that it had a duty to undertake an investigative exercise to satisfy itself of the facts and establish that the allegation was factually proven. [REDACTED]. The panel considered correspondence sent by Mrs Lapthorne to the TRA as part of these proceedings, in which she stated that she met up with Individual A and that “very regrettably sexual activity happened over a few sporadic occasions”. She stated that her actions of blurring boundaries caused the sexual situation which was “criminal, unjustifiable and inexcusable”. Overall, the panel found Individual A’s version of events regarding the specifics of the sexual relationship between Individual A and Mrs Lapthorne extremely compelling. The panel found that the level of detail in Individual A’s account, combined with a remarkable level of insight and reflection (including consideration of the impact on Mrs Lapthorne), demonstrated that [REDACTED] provided a measured recollection of events. However, the panel also noted that while the specifics and level of detail regarding the sexual relationship differed between Individual A and Mrs Lapthorne, both versions were categoric in confirming that a sexual relationship had in fact taken place between [REDACTED]. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proven. 2. Your conduct at paragraph 1 continued despite: a) Being spoken to [REDACTED] about setting boundaries [REDACTED]; The panel noted that Mrs Lapthorne had already admitted in the statement of agreed facts that this alleged conduct had occurred. However, the panel was aware that it had a duty to undertake an investigative exercise to satisfy itself of the facts and establish that the allegation was factually proven. [REDACTED]. The panel noted a letter in the bundle dated [REDACTED] from [REDACTED] to Mrs Lapthorne confirming the conversation which had taken place on [REDACTED], and reiterating what was discussed. The panel concluded that Mrs Lapthorne was spoken to by [REDACTED] about setting boundaries with Individual A as early as [REDACTED]. 7 The panel noted that both Mrs Lapthorne and Individual A referred to their having sexual contact after this point. [REDACTED]. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mrs Lapthorne continued to engage in a sexual relationship with Individual A despite having been spoken to by [REDACTED] about setting boundaries [REDACTED]. [REDACTED]. The panel noted the vastly significant difference between the nature of the conversation Mrs Lapthorne had with [REDACTED] around setting appropriate boundaries, and the reality of Mrs Lapthorne’s relationship with Individual A at that time, which was sexual. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proven. b) Receiving [REDACTED] around additional guidance [REDACTED]. The panel noted that Mrs Lapthorne had already admitted in the statement of agreed facts that this alleged conduct had occurred. However, the panel was aware that it had a duty to undertake an investigative exercise to satisfy itself of the facts and establish that the allegation was factually proven. [REDACTED]. The panel considered a letter sent by [REDACTED] to Mrs Lapthorne on [REDACTED], confirming the discussions which were held in the meeting [REDACTED]. The letter also confirmed a number of actions which were agreed during the meeting. [REDACTED]. The panel considered the witness statement of Mrs Lapthorne, who referred to certain behaviours of herself being “against all advice” [REDACTED]. The panel found this to be compelling evidence and were satisfied that Mrs Lapthorne had received advice and [REDACTED]. As laid out above with respect to allegation 2(a), the panel concluded that Mrs Lapthorne engaged in a sexual relationship with Individual A over a number of months [REDACTED]. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mrs Lapthorne had continued to engage in a sexual relationship with Individual A despite having received specific [REDACTED] around additional guidance [REDACTED]. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proven. 3. Your conduct at paragraph 1 was sexually motivated. 8 The panel noted that Mrs Lapthorne had already admitted in the statement of agreed facts that this alleged conduct had occurred. However, the panel was aware