Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions herself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

3331318

Teacher's date of birth:

25 March 1985

Location teacher worked:

Hertfordshire, East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

9 and 10 January 2017

Outcome type:

Prohibition 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 Ms Alexandra Sharman, formerly employed in Hertfordshire, East England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 9 and 10 January 2017.

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.

Ms Alexandra Sharman: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2017 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 E. Decision and reasons 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Alexandra Sharman Teacher ref number: 3331318 Teacher date of birth: 25 March 1985 NCTL case reference: 14169 Date of determination: 10 January 2017 Former employer: Marriotts School A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 9 January and 10 January 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Ms Alexandra Sharman. The panel members were Ms Janet Draper (Lay Panellist- in the Chair), Mr Peter Cooper (Teacher Panellist), and Mr Chris Rushton (Lay Panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Eve Piffaretti of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the National College was Ms Louisa Atkin of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Ms Alexandra Sharman was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 26 October 2016. It was alleged that Ms Alexandra Sharman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at the Marriotts School in Stevenage she: 1. Engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A; a. when they were approximately 15 years old; b. which involved engaging in sexual activity; i. Including sexual intercourse; ii on more than one occasion; Ms Sharman had not provided a response to the allegations and in the absence of a response the allegations were taken to have not been admitted. C. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher The presenting officer applied to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Ms Sharman. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the Chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: The panel has decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Ms Sharman for the following reasons:  The panel is satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings has been sent to Ms Sharman in accordance with Rule 4.11  Ms Sharman is aware that the hearing is taking place and has confirmed that she will not be attending. The panel is satisfied that Ms Sharman has voluntarily waived her right to attend.  In particular, the panel notes that Ms Sharman's union representative, Ms Gemma Reynolds, Senior Official (Legal and Caseworker) of the NASUWT responded to the NCTL by email dated 5 December 2016 indicating that Ms Sharman had received the Notice of Proceedings. The NASUWT indicate on Ms Sharman's behalf that she “does not wish to engage with the NCTL process and therefore will not be returning the completed form. She understands that the proceedings will 5 continue without her involvement". The NASUWT also refer to previous correspondence sent to the NCTL being an email dated 29 April 2016 which indicated that Ms Sharman did not intend to provide representations or attend the hearing.  The panel has also heard that Ms Sharman did not wish her union, the NASUWT to attend the hearing on her behalf.  The panel noted that Ms Sharman had not engaged with any of the investigatory or disciplinary proceedings in this matter.  No application for an adjournment has been made and there is no indication that Ms Sharman would attend at a later date were the hearing to be adjourned.  The panel has also had regard to the public interest in these proceedings' taking place reasonably promptly. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 2 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 7 to 16 Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 17 to 25 Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 26 to 59 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 60 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from  Witness A, Teacher at Marriotts School.  Witness B, Former Head of Behaviour, Safety and Attendance at Marriotts School. 6 E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and have reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Throughout the material time, Ms Sharman was employed as a PE Teacher at Marriotts School in Stevenage. Ms Sharman commenced her employment at the school in October 2007. It is alleged that when employed at the school, Ms Sharman engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, which commenced when he was a pupil in Year 10 and aged 15 years old. It is alleged that this relationship involved engaging in sexual activity on more than one occasion, which included sexual intercourse. The allegation came to light in approximately June 2015 when Pupil A disclosed to his GP that he had been the victim of alleged sexual abuse at the hands of Ms Sharman when asked why he was "depressed". Pupil A's GP passed this information on to the Hertfordshire Constabulary. On 20 June 2015, Ms Sharman spoke to a friend and school colleague, Witness B, about a threatening letter that she had received from Pupil A and the nature of her relationship with him. On 21 June 2015, Ms Sharman also told her friend and school colleague, Witness A about the letter from Pupil A and disclosed the nature of her relationship with him. On 21 June 2015 Witness B informed the Head Teacher at the school of the disclosure made to her by Ms Sharman. Ms Sharman was suspended by the school on 23 June 2015. Pupil A was interviewed by the police on the 19 July 2015 and informed them that he did not want to make a formal complaint of a crime. Witness A, Witness B and Individual A, a fellow teacher and friend were interviewed by the police during the course of their investigation. The School was informed by the police in December 2015 that they would not be pursuing criminal prosecution against Ms Sharman. Consequently, the school commenced an investigation in relation to the allegations in January 2016. Ms Sharman submitted her letter of resignation on the 12 January 2016. A disciplinary hearing was convened on the 18th March 2016 and Ms Sharman was dismissed for gross misconduct. 7 Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. You engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A; a. when they were approximately 15 years old; b. which involved engaging in sexual activity; i. Including sexual intercourse; ii. on more than one occasion; The panel carefully considered the written statement provided from Pupil A. The panel approached Pupil A's evidence with great care and caution due to the manner in which he raised his relationship directly with Ms Sharman, namely the threatening letter he wrote to her, which gave the panel considerable cause for concern. However, Pupil A’s evidence was not the sole or decisive evidence before the panel. His evidence that Ms Sharman had engaged in a relationship with him was supported by the evidence provided by Witness A and Witness B. The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A and Witness B, both of whom it considered to be accurate, honest, and credible witnesses. The panel had the opportunity to question both witnesses and explore the circumstances of Ms Sharman's disclosure to them. Witness A was also present when Ms Sharman disclosed her relationship with Pupil A to others, namely, Ms Sharman's parents, sister and ex-partner. Witness A and Witness B’s oral evidence was consistent with and added greater gravity to the written statements provided to the panel by them. The panel believed their oral and written evidence and attached weight to it. The panel are satisfied on the basis of this evidence and the elements of the statement of Pupil A which it corroborated that, on the balance of probabilities, Ms Sharman engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A. Furthermore, the panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the inappropriate relationship with Pupil A commenced when Pupil A was aged at least 15 years. This finding is made on the basis of the Pupil A's witness statement and the written and oral evidence of Witness A. The panel considered Pupil A's statement and the various descriptions he had given of the sexual activity which took place. Having carefully considered the evidence before it the panel are satisfied that the inappropriate relationship between Ms Sharman and Pupil 8 A involved engaging in sexual activity including sexual intercourse on more than one occasion. The witnesses describe Ms Sharman telling them individually and in the presence of others that Ms Sharman had sex with a student and that she had a sexual relationship with him so that on the balance of probabilities the panel are satisfied that sexual activity took place more than once. Based on the totality of the evidence the panel are satisfied that