Mrs Nicola Brogan

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 Nicola Brogan

Location teacher worked: Heywood, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 to 16 December 2024

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 Nicola Brogan, formerly employed in Heywood, North West 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 Nicola Brogan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Allegations 3 Preliminary Applications 5 Special Measures 6 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 24 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 Nicola Brogan TRA case reference: 20225 Date of determination: 16 December 2024 Former employer: Woodland Community Primary School Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened in person at Cheylesmore House, Coventry between 9 and 16 December 2024 to consider the case of Mrs Nicola Brogan. The panel members were Mr John Martin (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Olivia Kong (lay panellist) and Mrs Monique Clark (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Tom Walker (counsel) of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin (counsel). The teacher was present and was represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan (counsel). The hearing took place in public and was recorded. Allegations The panel considered the allegations as amended in a case management Hearing on 8 November 2024: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as the Headteacher at Woodland Community Primary School (“the School’’) between 1 September 2011 and 10 December 2019: 1. On one or more unknown dates you made inappropriate comments to the effect of those set out in Schedule 1. 2. On one occasion during a strategy meeting in relation to a pupil, you mimicked a Polish accent. 4 3. You created an uncomfortable and/or negative working environment for members of staff within the School, namely by:- a) way of your conduct as may be found proved at allegation 1 and/or 2 above; b) treating members of staff inconsistently and/or unfavourably on one or more occasions; c) shouting at members of staff on one or more occasions; d) causing members of staff to cry on one or more occasions; e) causing members of staff to be fearful of addressing issues/concerns with you, and/or about your behaviour. Schedule 1 – Inappropriate comments Comment made / to the effect of:- Person comment was made about and/or witnessed by: i. “Fat fuck who likes to finger herself” About Person A ii. “French maid” Witnessed by Person B iii. “Like a prostitute” Witnessed by Person B iv. “Captain Camp” About Person C v. “Would you shag her for an outstanding?” / “Would you sleep with the Ofsted inspector for an outstanding rating?” Witnessed by Person D / Person L vi. “I tell everybody that he is gay” About Person D vii. “Fuck off it is only a joke” Witnessed by Person D viii. “Fat slug” About Child A ix. “Not [Child B], fucking ugly [Child B]” About Child B x. “Fucking jock” Witnessed by Person D xi. “Zelda” About Person E 5 xii. “Condom on her finger” Witnessed by Person D xiii. “Pathetic” Witnessed by Person D xiv. “[Person J] fucking hates you, you can’t go” Witnessed by Person D xv. “Wouldn’t need an inhaler if they weren’t so fat” About Person F xvi. “Fat cow” Witnessed by Person G xvii. Telling parents that Person D, a heterosexual male, was gay About Person D xviii. Calling Person D, a heterosexual male, gay About Person D xix. “Little Irish one” or “little leprechaun” About Person H xx. “I will ruin his fucking career” and/or “end his fucking career” About Person I xxi. That you would send Person K a picture of a [REDACTED] for his “wank bank” Witnessed by Person D xxii. That a particular [REDACTED] had a “hairy face” Witnessed by Person D xxiii. That a pupil was “a pain at lunch time, she fucks me right off” About Pupil C xxiv. That a pupil was “a dick with a line” and/or referring to them as “stupid ugly” About Pupil D xxv. That a pupil “annoys the fuck out of me, he has no personality” About Pupil E xxvi. Calling a pupil a “wimp” About Pupil F Preliminary Applications Privacy Mrs Brogan’s representative made an application for parts of the hearing dealing with any personal or health issues to be dealt with in private. The panel took the view that it was in the interests of justice for such matters to be dealt with in private and thus directed that any evidence related to such matters should be dealt with in private session in accordance with Paragraphs 5.85 to 5.88 of the Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (“the Rules”). 6 Special Measures On the first day of the hearing, 9 December 2024, the panel received an application by the TRA for Witness B to have the benefit of an additional special measure in accordance with Paragraphs 5.102 to 5.103 of the Rules. Witness B had already been designated as a vulnerable witness, and the panel allowed the application for an additional measure, namely the attendance of a witness supporter. On the second day of the hearing, 10 December 2024, the panel received an application by the TRA for Witness C to have the benefit of an additional special measure in accordance with Paragraphs 5.102 to 5.103 of the Rules. Witness C had already been designated as a vulnerable witness, and the panel allowed the application for an additional measure, namely the attendance of a witness supporter. Admission of Additional Evidence On the second day of the hearing, 10 December 2024, the panel received an application for the admission of some text messages between Witness C and Witness A, both of whom were witnesses in the case. The messages had been disclosed by Witness C to the TRA’s presenting officer. The parties agreed to the admission of this material on the basis that it was relevant to the issues to be determined in the case and not unfair to admit it. This evidence indicated that Witness A contacted another witness who was yet to be called whilst he was under oath and still giving evidence. However, there was no indication that Witness C had engaged in any discussion about the evidence in the case such that her evidence was compromised. On the third day of the hearing, 11 December 2024, the panel received an application for the admission of additional evidence in the form of screenshots of WhatsApp messages which were attached to a letter by Witness A sent to the TRA on 10 December 2024. The letter stated the reasons why Witness A was withdrawing from the hearing. Witness A withdrew from his evidence on 9 December 2024 during his cross-examination by Mrs Brogan’s representative about WhatsApp message exchanges between him and Mrs Brogan. In the course of his cross-examination, Witness A accepted that he had used inappropriate language about a staff member in exchanges with Mrs Brogan. The panel was informed that the WhatsApp messages, which the panel had not had sight of, were relevant to the allegations and the case generally. The panel also noted that the messages were a selection and in the absence of evidence from Witness A, it was not possible to determine whether he had provided the complete picture. Whilst the panel appreciated that Mrs Brogan was said to have been included in this group chat, the panel heard from Mrs Brogan’s representative that she no longer had access to messages contained in the group chat. 7 The panel took the view that it seemed likely that Mrs Brogan had access to such messages at some point, but does note that she maintained that she has no recollection of the messages referred to by Witness A. The messages in question were exchanged some five years ago. The panel was surprised that the TRA had not had sight of these messages previously. However, the current focus needed to be on relevance and fairness. The panel accepted that the additional evidence was relevant and moved to consider fairness. This was an unusual application as it was in effect an application to adduce hearsay evidence after all the TRA witnesses had given evidence and in circumstances where the witness who produced the documents had stated he would be unwilling to give further evidence. The panel could thus not be satisfied that any documents admitted represented a complete package of messages and were also troubled by the challenge of not having a witness available to answer questions about their provenance and production or their nature and context. Mrs Brogan would not be able to properly challenge the evidence directly in questions. The panel took the view that it would be unfair in the circumstances to admit the additional messages into evidence. Doing so in the absence of a witness would be likely to cause prejudice to Mrs Brogan as she had not had the opportunity to prepare her case on the basis of their consideration and would not be able to challenge any witness on their contents. The ability to make submissions alone would not remedy the risk of unfairness. Mrs Brogan did not accept the allegations and the allegations were taken as not admitted. Summary of evidence This case related to allegations of inappropriate behaviour by Mrs Brogan said to have resulted in the creation of an uncomfortable and negative working environment for members of staff. The inappropriate behaviour is alleged to have included inappropriate and/or abusive comments about staff members, pupils and a parent. Mrs Brogan was employed at Woodland Community School from 1 September 2011. In November 2019, two anonymous complaints were made raising concerns about Mrs Brogan’s behaviour. This resulted in a referral