Mrs Siobhan Clarke

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 Siobhan Clarke

Location teacher worked: Lincolnshire

Date of professional conduct panel: 23 April 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 Siobhan Clarke, formerly employed in Lincolnshire.

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 Siobhan Clarke: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 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: Mrs Siobhan Clarke Date of determination: 23 April 2025 Former employer: The Priory Academy, Lincoln Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 23 April 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mrs Siobhan Clarke. The panel members were Mrs Jo Palmer Tweed (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Pamela Thompson (lay panellist) and Mr Paul Burton (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Clarke that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mrs Clarke provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Mr Alexander Barnfield, of Capsticks LLP, Mrs Clarke or her representative Miss Jessica Edmonds of NASUWT. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 17 April 2025 It was alleged that Mrs Clarke was guilty of having been convicted, at any time, of the following relevant offence: 1. On 9 February 2023, she was convicted of: a. Fail to provide specimen for analysis, contrary to Section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. It was also alleged that Mrs Clarke was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that as a teacher at The Priory Academy, St Catherine’s House, Cross O’Cliff Hill, Lincoln, Lincolnshire (“the School”): 2. On 11 January 2023, she attended the School and/or taught a class whilst under the influence of alcohol. Mrs Clarke admitted the allegation and admitted that she had been convicted of a relevant offence, and that she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 5 to 18 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 19 to 26 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 133 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 134 to 143 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mrs Clarke on 4 April 2025 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mrs Clarke 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. Mrs Clarke was employed as a maths teacher at The Priory Academy LSST from 1 September 2014. She was previously employed as a learning assistant in January 2013, before her appointment as a full time teacher. On the morning of 11 January 2023, on her way to work at the School, Mrs Clarke was involved in a road traffic collision outside of the School with another staff member. The police were called and attended the School. Mrs Clarke was arrested. On 27 January 2023, Mrs Clarke tendered her resignation with immediate effect. On 31 January 2023, a disciplinary hearing took place in Mrs Clarke’s absence and it was determined that she would have been dismissed, had she not resigned. Mrs Clarke was referred to the TRA on 14 February 2023. 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 9 February 2023, you were convicted of: 6 a. Fail to provide specimen for analysis, contrary to Section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Mrs Clarke admitted this allegation in her response to the notice of referral dated 2 July 2024. In the statement of agreed facts, Mrs Clarke admitted that she was convicted following a guilty plea of the offence of failing to provide a breath specimen for analysis, contrary to Section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1998 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. Mrs Clarke admitted that she was consequently fined £333, disqualified from driving for 12 months and ordered to pay a victim surcharge and costs. The police officer who attended the School provided a witness statement. That police officer stated that he attended the School at 10:20, and Mrs Clarke was brought into the reception room to speak to him. During their conversation, the police officer stated that Mrs Clarke spoke of how she had had a collision on the way to work, in which she had gone into the back of a vehicle. He stated that he asked Mrs Clarke if she had been drinking and she claimed to not have been. He stated that he decided to administer an alcohol breath test. He stated that Mrs Clarke was slurring her words and seemed to him to smell of alcohol strongly, as well acting in a confused state. He stated that he commenced the breath test procedure with the reading resulting in a level of 94 micrograms per 100ml of breath, putting Mrs Clarke over the legal limit. He stated that he arrested her at 10:38, and transported Mrs Clarke to custody at the police station arriving at 10:52. He stated that once Mrs Clarke was booked into custody, they “completed the Intox procedure” which resulted in Mrs Clarke “failing to sufficiently provide a sample of breath”. The panel has seen the certificate of conviction and accepted the certificate as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The certificate confirmed that Mrs Clarke had been convicted as alleged. The panel noted that her period of being disqualified from driving could be reduced by 13 weeks by the completion of a course. In light of Mrs Clarke’s admission, the certificate of conviction and the evidence of the police officer, the panel found this allegation proven. As a teacher at The Priory Academy, St Catherine’s House, Cross O’Cliff Hill, Lincoln, Lincolnshire (“the School”): 2. On 11 January 2023, you attended the School and/or taught a class whilst under the influence of alcohol. Mrs Clarke admitted this allegation in her response to the notice of referral dated 2 July 2024. In the statement of agreed facts, Mrs Clarke admitted that on the morning of 11 January 2023, she had consumed alcohol to the level of being three times over the legal 7 limit for driving. She admitted that on her way to work at the School that morning, she was involved in a road traffic collision, left the scene of the accident and drove her damaged car onto the School’s site. Mrs Clarke admitted that she walked from her parked car with the intention of taking her normal class and went to her classroom to teach. She admitted that she was disorientated and was under the influence of alcohol. A witness statement was provided to the police by the driver of the other vehicle involved in the collision. That person stated that they had been sat in their vehicle stationary at traffic lights on Southpark Avenue at the pedestrian crossing. They stated that as the lights turned to green, they went to drive ahead and a car hit the rear of their vehicle. They stated that they recognised the driver as a teacher at the School at which they also worked, they had seen her several times around the School site, and believed her name was Siobhan Clarke. The witness statement that Mrs Clarke came to their window, stated “that was me” then got back into her vehicle and the witness went to speak with her further. The witness stated they asked Mrs Clarke to call someone as they did not think she would be able to drive her vehicle as it was “very crumpled and.. the air bags had gone off.” The witness stated that Mrs Clarke rummaged in her handbag for her phone but instead pulled out her bank card. The witness stated that Mrs Clarke “appeared very confused, she kept repeating herself and wasn’t finishing her sentences. I would describe her as incoherent. As she was talking she was slurring her words. It didn’t occur to me that she may be under the influence of alcohol at the time but I knew she wasn’t right, I thought she’d perhaps had a medical episode.” The director of welfare for the School provided a witness statement for the purpose of the TRA proceedings. He state