Mrs Racheal Lockwood

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 Racheal Lockwood

Teacher reference number: 0684879

Teacher's date of birth: 24 April 1967

Location teacher worked: Bridlington, east yorkshire

Date of professional conduct panel: 23 to 24 June 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 Ms Racheal Lockwood, formerly employed in Bridlington, east yorkshire.

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.

Racheal Lockwood: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2022 2 3 4 4 4 Contents Introduction Allegations Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Mrs Lockwood Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 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: Ms Racheal Lockwood Teacher ref number: 0684879 Teacher date of birth: 24 April 1967 TRA reference: 19369 Date of determination: 24 June 2022 Former employer: Our Lady & St Peter RC Primary School, Bridlington, Yorkshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 23 & 24 June 2022 remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the case of Ms Rachael Lockwood. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist) and Ms Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Robin Havard of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting o fficer for the TRA was Ms Sherelle Appelby of Browne Jacobson, solicitors. Mrs Lockwood was neither present nor represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 27 January 2022. It was alleged that Ms Racheal Lockwood was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute , in that , whilst she was employed as a Teacher at Our Lady & Saint Peter RC Primary School; 1. She engaged in inappropriate and /or unprofessional behaviour on one or more occasions towards Pupil A specifically by; a. Stating “would you like me to punch you in the arm or maybe the face that would be better” or words to that effect; b. Stating “maybe I should stop you seeing dad then and make a call to social services and they will stop you seeing him” or words to that effect. 2. She engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil A specifically by: a. Pushing Pupil A in his stomach and/or rib cage; b. Causing Pupil A to fall backwards onto the floor by pushing him. Mrs Lockwood admitted allegation 1a but denied the remaining allegations. Further, in respect of the admitted allegation, Mrs Lockwood denied that this amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. However, taking account of the absence of M rs Lockwood , the panel confirmed that it would approach all of the allegations as if they were denied. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Mrs Lockwood The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of M rs Lockwood. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases , particularly GMC v Adeogba; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Mrs Lockwood was clearly aware of the proceedings and had been in correspondence with the TRA through her representatives from NASUWT. She had responded to the Notice of 5 Proceedings and had con firmed that the TRA shou ld correspond with he r representative who was named as Mr Bacon at NASUWT. However, on 7 June 2022, Ms Diane Ellis, a regional official at NASUWT, sent an email to the Presenting Officer, Ms Appelby, stating that Mrs Lockwood did not intend to be present at the hearing and that Ms Ellis would not be attending as her representative . Ms Ellis confirmed that Mrs Lockwood was aware that the TRA was entitled to continue in her absence. On 21 June 2022, following further email exchanges with the Presenting Officer, Ms Ellis wrote to the Presenting Officer to confirm that Mrs Lockwood, "has emailed the TRA to confirm that the Hearing will proceed in her absence." The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mrs Lockwood's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mrs Lockwood was not in attendance and would not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to her as a consequence. On balance, the panel decided tha t the hearing should continue in the absence o f Mr s Lockwood for the following reasons: • The panel was satisfied that Mrs Lockwood's absence was voluntary and she had waived her right to attend. It was clear that she had the benefit of advice from her representative and that her decision not to attend was a considered one; • No [Redacted] evidence had been served to suggest that Mrs Lockwood [Redacted] to attend; • There was no indication that Mrs Lockwood might attend at a future date and no purpose would be served by an adjournment; • There was a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. In this instance, the panel was also satisfied that it was in Mrs Lockwood 's interests to proceed to conclude these proceedings. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mrs Lockwood was neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 19 6 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 21 to 41 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 43 to 275 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 277 to 300 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses on behalf of the TRA: • Individual A, [Redacted] • Individual B, {Redacted] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel read all of the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing . It accepted the legal advice provided. Introduction Our Lady & Saint Peter RC Primary School ("the school") has approximately 210 pupils. In each year group, there are approximately 30 pupils and there is one class per year group. Mrs Lockwood was employed as a teacher at the school from January 2013 until March 2020. The allegations relate to Mrs Lockwood's alleged conduct towards pupil A on one day, namely 15 October 2019. Due to [Redacted] and {Redacted], an [Redacted] was in place in respect of pupil A when he joined the school. Individual A stated, and the panel found, that, at any one time, in [Redacted], there would typically be no more than one pupil with [Redacted]. Across the whole school, there would be perhaps five pu pils with [Redacted]. The purpose of [Redacted] was to provide Redacted] to pupils with [Redacted] and who may be [Redacted]. Following the events on 15 October 2019, Mrs Lockwood was subject to disciplinary proceedings by the school which led to her dismissal and she was subsequently referred to the TRA. 7 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: Whilst you were employed as a Teacher at Our Lady & Saint Peter RC Primary School: 1. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour on one or more occasions towards Pupil A specifically by; a. Stating “would you like me to punch you in the arm or maybe the face that would be better” or words to that effect; In reaching its findings, the panel had considered the written accounts provided by Individual A and Individual B, together with their oral evidence. The panel had listened carefully to both witnesses as they gave their evidence. The panel asked them questions with regard to the statements they had provided and also invited them to respond to the written accounts provided by Mrs Lockwood. The panel found both witnesses gave their evidence in a straightforward and measured way without attempting to embellish or exaggerate their accounts. In the case of Individual B, the panel noted that she stated she would not describe herself as a friend of Mrs Lockwood but she, "had no issues" with Mrs Lockwood. Individual B had been a [Redacted] at the school throughout the time that Mrs Lockwood had been a teacher at the school. She described Mrs Lockwood as a good teacher, commenting that she could be stern at times, and that Mrs Lockwood had taught [Redacted] of [Redacted] in the past. She would have daily contact with Mrs Lockwood and had not experienced any difficulty with their working relationship prior to 15 October 2019. This contrasted with the account provided by Mrs Lockwood at paragraph 24 of her statement, where she suggested that she did not know Individual B at all well, but the panel accepted the account of Individual B which, as with the rest of her evide