Ms Ashley Atkin

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 Ashley Atkin

Teacher reference number: 1970886

Teacher's date of birth: 14 January 1987

Location teacher worked: Frodsham, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 February – 26 February 2025

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 Ashley Atkin, formerly employed in Frodsham, North West 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 Ashley Atkin: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Ashley Atkin Teacher ref number: 1970886 Teacher date of birth: 14 January 1987 TRA reference: 22920 Date of determination: 26 February 2025 Former employer: Horn’s Mill Primary School, Cheshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 February – 26 February 2025 virtually, to consider the case of Ms Ashley Atkin. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist) and Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Ms Ashley Atkin was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of hearing dated 13 November 2024. It was alleged that Ms Ashley Atkin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a Teacher at Horn’s Mill Primary School between 01 September 2023 and 08 December 2023: 1. Ms Atkin was present at the school after consuming alcohol and/or smelling of alcohol on or around 20 October 2023; 2. Ms Atkin’s conduct at allegation 1 above affected her behaviour and/or ability to undertake her duties to the school. Ms Atkin having been convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence in that: 3. Ms Atkin was convicted at Cheshire Magistrates Court on or around 18 July 2023 for a driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol. Ms Atkin denied the allegations. She further denied that allegations 1 and 2 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and that allegation 3 amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime 5 importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. i) On 4 February 2025, by email to the TRA, Ms Atkin confirmed that she would not attend the hearing. On 6 February 2025 she further confirmed, by email, that she: a. voluntarily waives her right to attend the final hearing; b. is content for the panel to make a decision in her absence; c. understands that the panel may make findings against her and findings which may lead to the imposition of a prohibition order. The Notice of Hearing was sent to Ms Atkin on 13 November 2024 via post and email. In an email dated 14 November 2024, Ms Atkin confirmed that she had received the Notice of Hearing in the post. The panel considered that the teacher had waived her right to be present at the hearing, knowing when and where the hearing is taking place. ii) Based on the correspondence Ms Atkin sent to the TRA, it was considered unlikely that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily. iii) At the stage of the panel’s considerations, it was unclear how long any such adjournment would be required to obtain Ms Atkin’s engagement with the hearing. iv) The panel noted that Ms Atkin was not represented and the panel had not received any correspondence or application from Ms Atkin to adjourn the hearing to obtain legal representation. v) The panel would be disadvantaged by not having Ms Atkin give her account of events, having regard to the nature of the allegations against her. The panel does have details of the conviction as well as witness evidence of the events of 20 October 2023. The panel recognised that it needed to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. vi) The panel believed that there was a limited risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the teacher. vii) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. viii) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against the teacher was required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain 6 confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at Horn’s Mill Primary School (the “School”). The School would have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forward. ix) The panel also noted that there are four witnesses present at the hearing who are prepared to give evidence, and that it may be inconvenient for them to return again. Delaying the case for an undetermined period of time may further impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel noted that the teacher had waived her right to appear. In reaching its decision the panel agreed that it would nevertheless be able to consider the interests of the teacher in reaching its conclusions. 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 5 to 11 Section 2: Chronology – page 13 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency Witness Statements – pages 15 to 134 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 137 to 265 Section 5: Teacher’s Documents – page 267 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. The panel also read and reviewed a 26 page bundle of documents in support of the proceeding in absence application. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from The TRA’s witnesses: • Witness A, [REDACTED] • Witness B, [REDACTED] • Witness C, [REDACTED] 7 • Witness D, [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. Ms Atkin, whilst employed by another school prior to taking up her role with Horn’s Mill Primary School (“the School”), was convicted of ‘Driving a Motor Vehicle with Excess Alcohol’ on 18 July 2023. Ms Atkin was fined and disqualified from driving. On 1 September 2023, Ms Atkin started working at the School. From 7 September 2023, Ms Atkin was [REDACTED]. Following her return to the School, concerns were raised about Ms Atkin smelling of alcohol on 20 October 2023. The School progressed this matter to a disciplinary investigation. On 8 December 2023, Ms Atkin resigned from the School. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: It was alleged that you are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a Teacher at Horn’s Mill Primary School between 01 September 2023 and 08 December 2023: 1. You were present at the school after consuming alcohol and/or smelling of alcohol on or around 20 October 2023 Ms Atkin denied this allegation. The panel heard evidence that Ms Atkin attended the School and went to her classroom on 20 October 2023. Witness C gave evidence that she went into Ms Atkin’s classroom to prepare for the day. She noticed Ms Atkin was sitting in the dark in front of her computer. After asking if Ms Atkin was okay, Witness C gave Ms Atkin a hug, and Ms Atkin gave her a tight hug. Witness C noticed that Ms Atkin “seemed so fragile and her eyes were watery and puffy” as if she had been crying. Witness C stated that there was a smell of alcohol coming from Ms Atkin. [REDACTED], in written evidence, stated during her interview for Ms Atkin’s disciplinary investigation that Ms Atkin was avoiding making eye contact, because [REDACTED] thought that she was trying to hide that she was drunk. [REDACTED] stated that she could smell alcohol on Ms Atkin’s breath.