Ms Alice Cresswell

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: Ms Alice Cresswell

Location teacher worked: Milton Keynes, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 August 2024 to 2 September 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 Ms Alice Cresswell formerly employed in Milton Keynes, South East 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.

Ms Alice Cresswell Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Alice Cresswell TRA reference: 22259 Date of determination: 30 August 2024 Former employer: St Monica’s Catholic Primary School, Milton Keynes Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 27-30 August 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Alice Cresswell. The panel members were Ms Christine Cunniffe (Teacher Panellist) – in the chair, Mr Carl Lygo (Lay Panellist) and Dr Louise Wallace (Lay Panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lucy Mosley of Blake Morgan Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley Solicitors. Ms Cresswell was present and was represented by Counsel Ms Maria Aisha, instructed by Thompsons Solicitors. The hearing took place wholly in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 23 May 2024. It was alleged that Ms Cresswell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: Whilst working as an Early Careers Teacher at St Monica’s Catholic Primary School: 1. Between September 2022 and April 2023, she did not inform the School of the information set out in Schedule A. 2. In January 2023, following a police search of her bedroom, she informed Colleague A/ her employer that the search was in relation to stolen laptop(s), when that was not the case. 3. On or around 31 March 2023, she permitted Person A to attend the School grounds when she knew that they posed a risk to children. 4. Her conduct at paragraph 1 and/ or 2: a) Was dishonest; b) Lacked integrity Schedule A i. That Person A [REDACTED]: a) had been convicted of one or more child sexual offences; b) was on the sex offenders register; c) posed a risk to children Ms Cresswell made admissions to all of the allegations. In relation to allegation 1, Schedule i) a) Ms Cresswell explained that her admission was on the basis that she was aware that Person A had been convicted of one child sex offence only. In relation to allegation 4, Ms Cresswell admitted that her conduct at both allegations 1 and 2 was both dishonest and lacked integrity. Ms Cresswell admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Application for special measures Ms Aisha made an application for one special measure for Ms Cresswell. That special measure was for Ms Cresswell to have a supporter to accompany her throughout the hearing, namely her [REDACTED]. The basis for the request was Ms Cresswell’s youth, whereby it was suggested the presence of her [REDACTED] was a reasonable adjustment warranted and necessary due to her specific circumstances. The request was not opposed by the TRA. The panel carefully considered the parties' submissions and accepted the legal advice provided. On balance, the panel decided to accede to Ms Aisha’s request. Whilst the panel did not consider Ms Cresswell to be a vulnerable witness, it did take into account her youth and personal circumstances. It felt it likely that the quality of her evidence would be improved by the presence of her [REDACTED] for moral support. The panel also bore in mind that Ms Cresswell’s [REDACTED] was not going to be called as a witness by Ms Aisha and, therefore, it concluded that it would not be contrary to the interests of justice for Ms Cresswell’s [REDACTED] to accompany her throughout the hearing. Application for the hearing to be held in private Mr Bridges submitted a written application to hear the entirety of the proceedings in private. He summarised the application orally for the panel. He explained that whilst Person A has been anonymised within the allegation and in the TRA case papers, he remains potentially identifiable by reason of his relationship to Ms Cresswell. Within the papers there is extensive reference to Person A’s criminal offending of a sexual nature. There is also reference to his arrests in January and February 2023. Police investigations relating to Person A are on-going and his case is presently with the CPS awaiting a charging decision. The TRA’s position is that the fact of Ms Cresswell’s relationship to Person A is highly relevant to the background facts of the allegation, as is the history of Person A’s offending and the reasons for the search conducted in January 2023. Given that there are on-going police investigations, Mr Bridges submitted that there is a risk that if information relating to Person A’s offending is discussed in public at this hearing, this could prejudice any potential criminal proceedings against Person A. In the TRA’s submission, the need to avoid prejudicing any criminal proceedings against Person A outweighed the presumption that hearings of this nature should take place in public. 6 In the TRA’s written application it was also submitted that there is no unfairness to Ms Cresswell should the hearing be held entirely in private. As a matter of fairness, both to the TRA and to Ms Cresswell, having the entire hearing in private would allow all parties to speak freely about the issues in this case. This application was not opposed by Ms Aisha who, in any event, informed the panel that it had been her intention to make an application to exclude the public from all parts of the hearing in which the parties addressed health and personal matters. In determining the application, the panel had careful regard to the parties' oral and written submissions, and accepted the legal advice provided. The panel took account of the fact that there is a presumption that hearings of this nature will take place in public and there is a legitimate public interest in the openness and transparency of the TRA's disciplinary procedures. The panel was in agreement with Mr Bridges that given that there are on-going police investigations, there is a risk that if information relating to Person A’s offending is discussed in public at this hearing, this could prejudice any potential criminal proceedings against Person A. Given that the fact of Ms Cresswell’s relationship to Person A is closely intertwined with the background facts of the allegation, the panel did not consider it practicable for some parts of the hearing to be heard in public and some in private. Therefore, it determined that the entire hearing should be heard in private. That would not be contrary to the public interest. Application to admit additional evidence The panel considered an application made by Ms Aisha pursuant to paragraph 5.33 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”) to admit a 57 page bundle of documents on behalf of Ms Cresswell. That bundle contained the following documents: • Statement and reflection written by Ms Cresswell dated 16 August 2024 • Letter written by Ms Cresswell dated 2021 • ECT year feedback • Letter from [REDACTED] dated 17 October 2023 • [REDACTED] 2024 7 • Map of the School carpark • DBS letter dated 20 May 2024 • IPO intention letter from the TRA dated 5 December 2023 • Letter from the TRA advising no IPO imposed dated 2 April 2024 • Police warrant dated 20 December 2022 • Character reference • Testimonials • Notes and drawings from previous pupils The TRA did not object to the admission of this evidence. The panel was satisfied that the evidence was relevant to the issues before it and no prejudice or unfairness would be caused by its admission. The documents were accordingly admitted by the panel. 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 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and response – pages 7 to 14 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 15 to 29 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 30 to 491 In addition, the panel agreed to accept a 57 page bundle of documents from Ms Cresswell. It also accepted a written skeleton argument and appendices bundle from Mr Bridges relating to the TRA’s application for the hearing to be heard in private, in addition to a detailed timeline from Mr Bridges. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing, as well as the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. 8 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from [REDACTED], [REDACTED] at Thames Valley Police, [REDACTED], [REDACTED] at the School and [REDACTED], [REDACTED] at the School. Those witnesses were called by Mr Bridges. The panel heard oral evidence from Ms Cresswell. 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 School is a Catholic Primary School in Milton Keynes. At the relevant time it had approx. 400 pupils and 50 staff members. It was a mixed gender school for students from reception to year 6. Ms Cresswell started a relationship with Person A on 28 April 2018. Person A was convicted of making indecent images of children on 5 October 2021. He was placed on the Sex Offender’s R