Mrs Susan Grady

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 Susan Grady

Teacher reference number: 9344208

Teacher's date of birth: 16 December 1971

Location teacher worked: Nottinghamshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 to 16 June 2023

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 Susan Grady, formerly employed in Nottinghamshire, East 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 Susan Grady: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mrs Susan Grady Teacher ref number: 9344208 Teacher date of birth: 16 December 1971 TRA reference: 19735 Date of determination: 16 June 2023 Former employer: Newlands Junior School, Nottinghamshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 13 to 16 June 2023 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mrs Susan Grady. The panel members were Ms Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Reynolds of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louise Ravenscroft of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mrs Grady was present and was represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan of Cornwall Street Barristers, instructed by the National Education Union. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 3 April 2023. It was alleged that Mrs Grady was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst a teacher and pastoral support worker at the Newlands Junior School (‘the School’) she: 1. On 20 November 2020: a) used unreasonable force against Pupil A by: i. holding his left wrist; and/or ii. dragging him; and/or iii. holding him under his arms; and/or iv. pushing him b) did not follow the School: i. behaviour management procedure; and ii. managing risky behaviours procedure 2. By her conduct at (1) above she failed to have regard to the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being. Mrs Grady admitted allegation 1(a)(i) but denied allegations 1(a)(ii) – (iv). Mrs Grady admitted allegations 1(b) and 2. 5 Preliminary applications Applications regarding hearsay evidence Application on day 1 – 13 June 2023 The panel considered a written application from the presenting officer to admit the following hearsay evidence as contained within the bundle: a. Notes of a discussion on 22 November 2020 with Pupil A; b. Notes of a discussion on 24 November 2020 with Pupil B; c. Notes of a discussion on 20 November 2020 with Pupil A’s [REDACTED]; and d. Notes of a discussion on 24 November 2020 between Individual A, [REDACTED] and Pupil A. The panel had the benefit of a written response to the application submitted by the teacher’s representative. The panel also heard oral submissions on the application from the presenting officer and Mrs Grady’s representative. The panel noted that the teacher’s representative objected to the admission of the evidence. The panel was advised that hearsay evidence is admissible in civil proceedings. The panel was aware that, in accordance with paragraph 5.33 of the Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession dated May 2020 (‘the Procedures’), the panel may admit evidence which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case where it is fair to do so. The panel was referred to the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] (EWCA 155 (Admin)) which set out the relevant principles in respect of the admissibility of hearsay evidence. The panel was further referred to the case of El Karout v Nursing Midwifery Council [2019] EWCA 28 (Admin) which provided commentary on circumstances in which certain hearsay evidence may not be admitted. The panel also considered the provisions relevant to hearsay evidence, as set out in the Civil Evidence Act 1995. In respect of the hearsay evidence relating to Pupil A, Pupil B and Individual A, the panel noted that the documents were prepared solely for the purpose of an investigation by the School into the allegations. The panel was comfortable that this hearsay evidence was not sole and decisive and the panel would be able to test its reliability in the absence of Pupil A, Pupil B and Individual A by questioning other witnesses. The panel considered that the hearsay evidence relating to Pupil A, Pupil B and Individual A was relevant to the case. The panel therefore decided that, on balance, it would be fair to admit this 6 evidence. However, in the course of its deliberations, the panel recognised this evidence as hearsay and considered the weight that should be placed on it. However, in respect of Pupil A’s [REDACTED], the panel considered the submissions and found that no good reason had been provided as to why Pupil A’s [REDACTED] did not provide a formal statement or attend the professional conduct panel hearing in order for her evidence to be tested. The panel also noted that the document was not a formal witness statement (although it was titled as such) but appeared to be a note prepared by Witness B of a telephone conversation between her and Pupil A’s [REDACTED]. The conversation consisted of Witness B reporting the incident, and Pupil A’s [REDACTED]’s immediate response. This was not a document prepared solely for the purpose of any investigation into the allegations (or a document signed and approved by Pupil A’s [REDACTED]). Further, the panel noted that this document referred to allegations which did not form part of the allegations before the panel. The panel was not satisfied that it would be fair to admit this document as hearsay evidence in the circumstances. The panel decided not to admit this document as evidence. Application on day 2 (14 June 2023) On the second day of the hearing, the panel was informed that the TRA’s witness, Witness C, [REDACTED], could not be contacted to attend the hearing. The presenting officer therefore made an oral application for Witness C’s witness statement to be admitted as hearsay evidence. The teacher’s representative did not object to this application. The panel considered that Witness C’s evidence was relevant to the case and noted that the evidence was not disputed. The panel therefore decided to admit this evidence. However, in the course of its deliberations, the panel identified this as hearsay evidence and considered the weight that should be placed on it. 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 5 to 8 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 9 to 36 • S ection 3: TRA witness statements – pages 37 to 85 • S ection 4: TRA documents – pages 86 to 295 7 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 296 to 330 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A, [REDACTED] • Witness B, [REDACTED] The panel heard oral evidence from Mrs Grady. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mrs Grady commenced her position as temporary pastoral support worker at the School on 1 September 2018. Mrs Grady applied for the role of Special Educational Needs Coordinator (‘SENCO’) at the School on 4 March 2019 and commenced her new position as SENCO and part time class teacher on 23 April 2019. At the material time, Mrs Grady taught a [REDACTED] class on a job-share basis from Wednesday lunchtime to Friday afternoon. On 20 November 2020, Mrs Grady allegedly inappropriately restrained Pupil A by holding his left wrist, dragging him, holding him under his arms and pushing him, thereby failing to follow the School’s behaviour and regulation policy and managing risky behaviour policy (hereafter referred to as ‘the Incident’). A statement was obtained from Witness B, [REDACTED], who corresponded with the LADO, HR and the Governors regarding the alleged Incident. Statements were obtained from Witness A, [REDACTED], and Mrs Grady on 20 November 2020. On the same date, Witness B recorded her own account of the Incident and prepared notes of her conversation with Pupil A’s parent, [REDACTED], LADO Allegations Officer, [REDACTED], HR at the School and the Chair of Governors. Accounts were obtained from Pupil A, Pupil B and Witness C. On 24 November 2020, there was a preliminary meeting between Witness B and Mrs Grady. 8 An investigatory meeting was conducted on 2 December 2020 by the investigating officer, Individual B, ([REDACTED]), with Mrs Grady and her Trade Union representative, [REDACTED]. A disciplinary meeting was conducted on 4 January 2021 with a panel of Governors, Individual B, a HR representative from the council, Mrs Grady, Mrs Grady’s representative and a note taker. The matter was referred to the TRA on 7 January 2021. 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 20 November 2020: a) used unreasonable force against Pupil A by: i. holding his left wrist; and/or ii. dragging him; and/or iii. holding him under his arms; and/or; iv. pushing him; Mrs Grady admitted in evidence that, on 20 November 2020, she had used unreasonable force against Pupil A by holding his left wrist. Mrs Grady denied draggin