Ms Brandi Robin

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 Brandi Robin

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 April 2026

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 Brandi Robin, formerly employed in London, 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.

OFFICIAL-FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Ms Brandi Robin Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 2 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Brandi Robin Teacher date of birth: 21/9/1994 Date of determination: 24 April 2026 Former employer: Mulberry School for Girls, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 20 to 24 April 2026 by way of a virtual hearing to consider the case of Ms Brandi Robin. The panel members were Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist) and Mr Steven Boocock (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr John Lucarotti of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Ms Robin was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of Cornwall Street Chambers. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private, and was recorded. 3 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 8 January 2026. It was alleged that Ms Robin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a Teacher of Sociology and Acting Head of Religion and Society Faculty at Mulberry School for Girls: 1. On 14 June 2023, she encouraged students to look for a leaked examination paper for the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology Examination; 2. On 14 June 2023, she read out questions to students from what she knew to be a potentially leaked copy of the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology Examination; 3. On 14 June 2023, she told students how to answer the questions that she had read out; 4. On 14 June 2023, she showed the potentially leaked copy of the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology Examination to Colleague A and said “it says 2023, that looks real doesn’t it? It has the barcode” or words to that effect; 5. She attempted to conceal that she had read out a leaked copy of the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology examination to students before the exam, in that: a. On 14 June 2023, she said to Colleague B that if anyone asked she would say general themes had been leaked, not questions; and/or b. On 14 June 2023, she said to Colleague A “you were never here” or words to that effect; c. On 14 June 2023, she said to Colleague A “I will lie to the death for these girls’ grades” or words to that effect; d. On 16 June 2023, she said to Colleague A she would need to “stick to [her] story and say that [she] thought the themes had been leaked but nothing else” or words to that effect; 6. Her conduct at paragraph(s) 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5(a) and/or 5(b) and/or 5(c)and/or 5(d): a. Lacked integrity; b. Was dishonest. At the outset of the hearing, admissions were made on behalf of Ms Robin in respect of the following allegations: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5(b), 6 (in respect of 1,2,3 and 5(b) only) Ms Robin further admitted that the allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 4 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 15 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 16 to 28 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 29 to 514 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 515 to 556 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Witness statement (28 pages) of Ms Robin dated 16 April 2026. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. The panel also had regard to two documents prepared by the TRA to assist with its presentation of the case: • ‘Timeline – Brandi Robin’ • ‘PO closing statement BR 220426’ In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (“the Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] (also referred to as ‘Colleague A’ for the purposes of the allegations), [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] 5 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Witness D – [REDACTED] (also referred to as ‘Pupil M’ during the course of her evidence), [REDACTED] Ms Robin also gave oral evidence and called the following witnesses: Witness E – [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. The panel noted that Ms Robin had been employed at Mulberry School for Girls (“the School”) since 16 December 2019 as Head of Sociology. In April 2022, she became the Acting Head of Religion and Society Faculty at the School. The panel noted that the details of what actually transpired on 14 and 16 June 2023 were not in dispute and that the TRA witness accounts were not challenged by Ms Robin. Ms Robin’s Year 13 students were due to sit A Level Paper 3 Sociology examination in the afternoon of 14 June 2023. In the course of a revision session taking place before the examination, Ms Robin encouraged students to use their mobile phones to find leaked examination papers. A student located what turned out to be the leaked examination paper, which Ms Robin then accessed and informed the students present of some of the questions, and gave advice on how to answer them. Once the examination had started, Ms Robin informed a senior member of school staff of the existence of the leaked paper but did not provide details of the particular actions she had taken with her students. Following the examination (both on the same day and two days afterwards), Ms Robin made certain comments to some colleagues in respect of the leaked paper which indicated how she intended to approach any potential investigation into what had taken place. Concerns were subsequently raised about potential examination malpractice which were then investigated. The investigation included the sourcing of some statements from the students who had taken the examination and relevant staff members. Ms Robin’s employment at the School ceased on 29 January 2024, and the matter was reported to the TRA on 23 February 2024. 6 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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 14 June 2023, you encouraged students to look for a leaked examination paper for the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology Examination; This allegation was admitted. It was also supported by evidence presented to the panel, from Witness A, who stated: ‘On 14 June 2023, on the day of the Sociology Exam, Brandi Robin held a revision session before lunch. I was sat to the side of the classroom, and Brandi Robin was standing at the front of the class which was full with students. The pupils had their phones out, and Brandi Robin was asking the pupils to “keep checking”. At the time, I did not know what she meant. One of the pupils sitting at the back of the classroom then said “miss, I’ve got it”.’ The allegation was therefore found proved. 2. On 14 June 2023, you read out questions to students from what you knew to be a potentially leaked copy of the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology Examination; This allegation was admitted. It was also supported by evidence presented to the panel from Witness A, who stated: ‘Brandi Robin asked the pupil to bring her phone to the front, she looked through her phone, and then wrote some questions on the board and explained how to answer them. The pupils were still looking at their phones, and then another pupil said “I think I’ve got the whole thing” and brought her phone to the front. Brandi Robin looked at it, and then went through the questions with the class.’ The allegation was therefore found proved. 3. On 14 June 2023, you told students how to answer the questions that you had read out; This allegation was admitted. It was supported by the same evidence of Witness A referred to above in respect of allegation 2. The allegation was therefore found proved. 7 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 4. On 14 June 2023, you showed the potentially leaked copy of the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology Examination to Colleague A and said “it says 2023, that looks real doesn’t it? It has the barcode” or words to that effect; This allegation was admitted. It was also supported by evidence presented to the panel, from Witness A, who stated: ‘Brandi Robin looked at it, and then went through the questions with the class. Brandi Robin turned to me and said “that looks real doesn’t it? It’s got the barcode and everything!”.’ The allegation was therefore found proved. 6. Your conduct at paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and/or 3: a. Lacked integrity; This allegation was admitted. The panel considered that each of allegations 1, 2 and 3 formed part of a course of conduct that was designed to provide Ms Robin’s students with an unfair advantage when undertaking their examinations. Encouraging students to locate leaked examination papers (allegation 1), broadcasting the content of said leaked examination paper when potentially located (allegation 2), and then providing students with potential answers to these questions (allegation 3), all amount to a serious breach of ethical standards such that they amount to a lack of integrity. The allegation was therefore found proved. b. Was dishonest In considering this allegation, the panel bore in mind the test in respect of dishonesty as articulated by the Supreme Court in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67: 'When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of the belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.' This allegation was admitted. 8 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel further considered that allegations 1, 2 and 3 all amounted to a course of conduct akin to cheating. The panel considered that, notwithstanding Ms Robin’s account that she only became fully aware after the event that her conduct might amount to examination malpractice, Ms Robin was aware that her actions were assisting her students to get an unfair advantage. She described this as ‘severe tunnel vision’ and ‘wanting to get the best for my students.’ The panel further considered that by any objective standards, Ms Robin’s actions would be considered dishonest, involving as they did, acts which allowed students to have access to salient details around examination papers before entering the examination itself. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proved, for these reasons: 5. You attempted to conceal that you had read out a leaked copy of the A Level Paper 3 2023 Sociology examination to students before the exam, in that: a) On 14 June 2023, you said to Colleague B that if anyone asked you would say general themes had been leaked, not questions; and/or The panel noted that the detail of this allegation was admitted, but that the stem itself (attempted to conceal) was not. In terms of the specific detail of this allegation, the panel noted the content of the email sent by Witness A (and confirmed by Witness A as accurate during her oral evidence) to her headteacher on 16 June 2023 in which she stated: ‘Brandi then said to [REDACTED] (who was sat next to me in the office) that if anyone asks they will say that the general themes got leaked, but not the actual questions.’ Having concluded that there was sufficient evidence that the statement in question was made by Ms Robin, the panel went on to consider in detail whether this amounted to an attempt to conceal that she had read out a leaked copy of the examination. In the view of the panel, the statement merely amounted to the verbalising of a particular intention on the part of Ms Robin of what she would say in a future situation. It did not constitute an attempt to conceal, especially given that those present were seemingly aware of what had taken place. The panel noted that it was not alleged that Ms Robin had attempted to coerce or restrict colleagues from reporting the issue (and the panel made no determination on this point), and that she had already drawn some attention to the matter itself by reporting the fact of the leak to the senior member of staff. 9 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE In those circumstances the panel was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that Ms Robin made the statement as part of an attempt to conceal the activity with the leaked examination paper. The allegation was therefore found not proved. b) On 14 June 2023, you said to Colleague A “you were never here” or words to that effect; The panel noted that the detail of this allegation was admitted and that at the outset of proceedings, it had been admitted on behalf of Ms Robin that the stem of the allegation was admitted as well. The panel further noted that following the conclusion of Ms Robin’s evidence it appeared to be the position that Ms Robin did not accept that the statement in question amounted to an attempt to conceal. In light of this somewhat confusing background in respect of the admissions, the panel considered the evidence on this point in particular detail. It noted that in Ms Robin’s statement she said: ‘I told [REDACTED]“you were never here” in jest. Of course she was there, she was shadowing me for the day. I believe that if questioned, [REDACTED] would reinforce that regardless of what she thought my intention was, I was laughing when I said that and it was not said in a sinister manner. What I meant by this was that, if the situation became serious or there were consequences, I would take responsibility.’ Ms Robin expanded on this point in her oral evidence and stated that it was just a figure of speech and that it was not connected with an attempt to conceal the leaked examination paper. The panel found that the statement in question had been made by Ms Robin. Given that it was evident that Witness A was present on the day in question and that this would have been apparent from any records, the panel was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that this statement amounted to an attempt to conceal the activity with the leaked examination paper. The allegation was therefore found not proved. c) On 14 June 2023, you said to Colleague A “I will lie to the death for these girls’ grades” or words to that effect; The panel noted that the detail of this allegation was admitted, but that the stem itself (attempted to conceal) was not. 10 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE In terms of the specific detail of this allegation, the panel noted the evidence of Witness A who stated: ‘That afternoon, when I was in the office, Brandi Robin continued the conversation regarding the exam paper. She received a call from a pupil of hers, and when she ended the call she informed me the leaked paper was the real exam. Her tone at this point was somewhat excitable, like she was proud the girls would have done well. She then said she would defend these girls’ grades.’ The panel noted additional detail from the email from Witness A to her headteacher dated 16 June 2023 (referred to previously): ‘I wrote down a quote as Brandi was talking as she said “I will lie to the death for these girls’ grades”. Brandi was making it very clear that if anyone asked, they would not say that they had prior knowledge of the questions. I asked “What if one of the girls says something?” to which she replied that they would not be so stupid as to say anything.’ The panel found that the statement in question had been made by Ms Robin. As with allegation 5(a), the panel considered that this statement amounted an articulation by Ms Robin as to what she would do in the event that questions were posed to her about the leaked examination paper. Whilst the panel considered that this statement was ill-advised, hyperbolic and demonstrative of a failure to prioritise the integrity of the examination process, the panel was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that it amounted to an attempt, in of itself, to conceal the activity relating to the leaked examination paper. It was simply a statement of what she intended to do in a specific situation. In the panel’s view, this fell short of an attempt to conceal. The allegation was therefore found not proved. d) On 16 June 2023, you said to Colleague A you would need to “stick to your story and say that you thought the themes had been leaked but nothing else” or words to that effect; The panel noted that the detail of this allegation was admitted, but that the stem itself (attempted to conceal) was not. In terms of the specific detail of this allegation, the panel noted the evidence of Witness A who stated: ‘There was one occasion following the incident, when I was in the classroom with Brandi Robin, and she started talking about it. She told me she can’t sleep because of what she had done, and that she would have to “stick to the story”.’ 11 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel noted additional detail from a further email (and confirmed as accurate by Witness A during her evidence) sent from Witness A to her headteacher on 19 June 2023: ‘She said she would have to stick to her story as she hasn’t been this scared in a long time and that when students have been coming up to her saying “Miss can you believe it was the actual paper” she has been saying to them “You mean the THEMES came up, I don’t know what you are talking about with the questions”’ The panel noted that no allegation was made by the TRA as to what if anything had been said to the students by Ms Robin. The focus of the allegation was simply on what had been said to Witness A. As with allegations 5(a) and (c), the panel considered that Ms Robin with this statement was simply setting out her intended approach in the event that questions were put to her on the subject of the leaked examination paper. Whilst the statement in question does not reflect well on Ms Robin, in that it suggested that Ms Robin was likely to misrepresent what occurred in relation to the leaked examination paper, the panel was not persuaded on the balance of probabilities that such a statement, on its own, amounted to an attempt to conceal the activity with the leaked examination paper. The allegation was therefore found not proved. Your conduct at paragraphs 4 and/or 5(a) and/or 5(b) and/or 5(c)and/or 5(d) a. Lacked integrity; b. Was dishonest Bearing in mind that allegations 5(a), (b), (c) and (d) had been found not proved, it was not necessary for the panel to consider these allegations in respect of those particulars. In relation to allegation 4, the panel considered that this amounted to a statement of fact to a colleague and, in of itself, it was unclear how the comment in question could amount to something that was either dishonest or lacking integrity. The allegation was therefore found not proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 12 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, (“the Advice”). The panel first considered whether the conduct of Ms Robin, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Ms Robin was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach…. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel also noted that the preamble to Part 1 of the Teachers’ Standards states the need for teachers to act with honesty and integrity and that Ms Robin’s actions clearly breached these duties. Furthermore, the panel noted that paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Keeping Children Safe in Education (2022) states as follows: ‘Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play. In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all practitioners should make sure their approach is child centred. This means that they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child.’ The panel considered that Ms Robin’s conduct in encouraging (and allowing) students to access a leaked examination paper was clearly not in the best interests of the children, given the potential for detrimental impact to them both in terms of their education and academic attainment. Accordingly, the panel considered that this principle had been breached by Ms Robin. The panel also considered whether Ms Robin’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 13 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offence of fraud or serious dishonesty was relevant given the potential for impact on the integrity of the examination process. The panel considered Ms Robin’s various acts in encouraging and assisting students to obtain an unfair advantage in one of their A-level examinations to be highly reprehensible. The panel considered that Ms Robin’s actions had the potential to undermine the integrity of the entire examination process, noting that this process represents the culmination of the education system as a whole. Furthermore, the panel noted that, in going beyond what was permitted in terms of exam preparation, Ms Robin had indicated to her students that cheating was acceptable and that this was an extremely poor example to provide to them. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Ms Robin amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Ms Robin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Ms Robin’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Ms Robin’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Ms Robin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of serious dishonesty was relevant. The panel considered that Ms Robin’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. Ms Robin’s conduct involved dishonest actions which had the effect of providing her students with an unfair advantage in their examinations. A member of the public would be shocked to hear that a senior teacher had encouraged and assisted their students in such a way. The public have a legitimate expectation that the examination process will be 14 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE overseen by teachers who behave in a way that justifies the trust placed in them. The panel considered that Ms Robin’s dishonesty and lack of integrity in her actions had the potential to seriously undermine public trust in the profession. For these reasons, the panel found that Ms Robin’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. The panel recognised that prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In light of the panel’s findings against Ms Robin which involved dishonesty and lack of integrity in encouraging and assisting students to obtain an unfair advantage in their examinations, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Ms Robin were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was also of the view that there was a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession as the conduct found against Ms Robin was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Ms Robin in the profession. The panel considered that there was a public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no doubt had been cast upon her abilities as an educator and the evidence suggested that she is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession. 15 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Ms Robin. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; The panel noted that it had already found that a number of the personal and professional conduct elements had been departed from and that it considered these were serious in nature. The panel did also have regard to the fact that exam papers being leaked online was an evolving area of concern and noted the evidence of Witness B to the effect that staff had not been provided with explicit training as to what to do in such a situation. The panel further noted that the School and the Joint Council for Qualifications had since introduced express guidance on this point. • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences, or involved the coercion of another person to act in a way contrary to their own interests; The panel noted that, whilst the proven allegations did relate to dishonesty and lack of integrity, these had not been repeated and that there was no cogent evidence before it that the consequences of the conduct had been serious. The panel considered that although the dishonest conduct was of obvious concern, it was not self-serving and it stemmed from a misguided belief on the part of Ms Robin as to what was in the best interests of her students. Furthermore, the panel noted that this was a momentary, discrete incident that occurred over a short period of time, and was out of character. In this respect, and recognising the need to take a nuanced approach when it comes to assessing cases involving dishonesty, the panel considered that the dishonest conduct was not at the most serious end of the spectrum. • deliberate action in serious contravention of requirements for the conduct of an examination or assessment leading to an externally awarded qualification or national assessment (or deliberate collusion in or deliberate concealment of such action) particularly where the action had, or realistically had the potential to have, a significant impact on the outcome of the examination assessment; 16 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel noted that Ms Robin’s actions did constitute a serious contravention of examination regulations and that there was some potential for impact on the outcome of the assessment in question, albeit no cogent evidence as to the impact itself. It further noted that the relevant examination board (AQA) had taken action in respect of Ms Robin in that regard, and that she had been suspended from involvement in AQA examinations for a period of five years (until after the 2028 examination session). For completeness, the panel did also consider in detail whether the following behaviours applied: • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE); However, the panel considered that these behaviours typically had greater relevance to situations where there was an ongoing risk posed by the teacher. In light of its overall assessment of the evidence provided by Ms Robin, and having regard to the evidence as a whole, including the lack of cogent evidence around any detrimental impact caused by Ms Robin’s behaviours, the panel did not consider Ms Robin to pose such an ongoing risk. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. In respect of mitigating factors, the panel noted the following: Whilst it was accepted that Ms Robin’s actions were largely impulsive and not premeditated, the panel nonetheless considered that her behaviour was deliberate. Although there was evidence before the panel as to challenging personal circumstances experienced by Ms Robin in the months prior to June 2023, and it was apparent that Ms Robin was impacted by the stress linked to operating in a more senior role at a relatively early stage of her career, there was no evidence to suggest that Ms Robin was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation at the time of her misconduct. Having noted the content and volume of the references in support of Ms Robin, the panel considered that Ms Robin did have a previously good history and that the incident was wholly out of character. It further noted that there had been no previous regulatory and disciplinary findings made against her. 17 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel considered that she had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both her personal and professional conduct and had contributed significantly to the education sector. In this regard, the panel noted the evidence that she had made a considerable impact in: • enhancing how her subject was taught and viewed in the school (it became the largest department); • delivering regular Saturday intervention sessions for students of a wide range of academic abilities; • developing innovative and accessible approaches to online teaching and learning (including with students outside her school); • undertaking youth work, including homework sessions, outside of the school setting; • acting as a positive role model for young Black girls. In addition to the 16 references provided by former colleagues and students alike, the panel were particularly struck by the extremely positive descriptions of Ms Robin’s abilities as a teacher from the TRA witnesses who gave oral evidence. These included the following descriptions of Ms Robin: • ‘when I saw her teach it was really apparent that she had a great relationship with the students ….pupils respected her…..she created a positive environment… took great pride in her subject matter.’ (Witness A) • ‘exceptionally hard working…she went over and above… she was a great member of staff….she was very highly regarded.’ (Witness B) • ‘an amazing sociology teacher and an exceptional person to work with… she was an outstanding practitioner… high level of knowledge…. so engaged with the kids, known for her professional judgement….100 per cent significant impact on school.’ (Witness C) Furthermore, the panel considered that Ms Robin had demonstrated deep, consistent and authentic insight and remorse when giving her oral evidence. The panel noted that Ms Robin admitted the allegations against her which the panel found proved, and the panel were impressed with the way in which Ms Robin engaged with the proceedings. The panel noted that Ms Robin was able to explain clearly what had happened in June 2023, why it happened, and what she had changed in respect of her own personal behaviours (including how she was able to manage impulse control) since then. 18 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE ‘Professionally, I recognise that at the time I had a very narrow understanding of what it meant to support my students. I believed it was my duty to prioritise their success above other professional considerations. In that mindset, if an exam appeared to be leaked, I saw giving them the answers as helping them, and if they were at risk of getting into trouble for something I did not believe was wrong, I felt compelled to protect them. I now understand that this approach was misguided. Supporting students is not about removing consequences or securing outcomes for them. It is about preparing them for the realities of life beyond the classroom.’ Ms Robin was also able to clearly describe the impact that her behaviour had had on others, including staff and students, and the integrity of the examination process as whole. She expressed her ‘shame’ at having behaved in the way that she did. In light of this evidence, the panel considered that the risk of Ms Robin of repeating the conduct was extremely low. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum of dishonesty conduct issues and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. In making this recommendation, the panel acknowledged that proven allegations relating to dishonest conduct around encouraging and assisting students to obtain an unfair advantage in an examination are an extremely serious matter and that any teacher found guilty of such allegations could quite reasonably expect a prohibition order to be the end result of any regulatory proceedings against them. However, in the view of the panel, there were three key factors which meant that, in the particular circumstances of this case, such a decision would not have been proportionate: • The momentary and impulsive nature of her behaviour, which occurred over a short period of time on one occasion; 19 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE • The extremely low risk of repetition evidenced by Ms Robin’s substantial insight and remorse regarding her behaviour; • The compelling evidence of exceptionally high standards previously demonstrated by Ms Robin on a professional and personal level. Accordingly, the panel determined that it was not necessary to recommend a prohibition order in this case. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of sanction. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven, I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Ms Brandi Robin is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach…. 20 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Ms Robin involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Ms Robin fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher demonstrating dishonesty and a lack of integrity in encouraging and assisting students to obtain an unfair advantage in their examinations. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Ms Robin, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel makes this observation: “The panel considered that Ms Robin’s conduct in encouraging (and allowing) students to access a leaked examination paper was clearly not in the best interests of the children, given the potential for detrimental impact to them both in terms of their education and academic attainment.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “Furthermore, the panel considered that Ms Robin had demonstrated deep, consistent and authentic insight and remorse when giving her oral evidence. The panel noted that Ms Robin admitted the allegations against her which the panel found proved, and the panel were impressed with the way in which Ms Robin engaged with the proceedings. The panel noted that Ms Robin was able to explain clearly what had happened in June 21 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 2023, why it happened, and what she had changed in respect of her own personal behaviours (including how she was able to manage impulse control) since then. ‘Professionally, I recognise that at the time I had a very narrow understanding of what it meant to support my students. I believed it was my duty to prioritise their success above other professional considerations. In that mindset, if an exam appeared to be leaked, I saw giving them the answers as helping them, and if they were at risk of getting into trouble for something I did not believe was wrong, I felt compelled to protect them. I now understand that this approach was misguided. Supporting students is not about removing consequences or securing outcomes for them. It is about preparing them for the realities of life beyond the classroom.’ Ms Robin was also able to clearly describe the impact that her behaviour had had on others, including staff and students, and the integrity of the examination process as whole. She expressed her ‘shame’ at having behaved in the way that she did. In light of this evidence, the panel considered that the risk of Ms Robin of repeating the conduct was extremely low.” This evidence of Ms Robin’s insight means I agree with the panel’s assessment of the risk of repetition. I have therefore given this element some weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel comments: “Ms Robin’s conduct involved dishonest actions which had the effect of providing her students with an unfair advantage in their examinations. A member of the public would be shocked to hear that a senior teacher had encouraged and assisted their students in such a way. The public have a legitimate expectation that the examination process will be overseen by teachers who behave in a way that justifies the trust placed in them. The panel considered that Ms Robin’s dishonesty and lack of integrity in her actions had the potential to seriously undermine public trust in the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty in this case and the impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” 22 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Ms Robin herself. The panel provides these comments: “Having noted the content and volume of the references in support of Ms Robin, the panel considered that Ms Robin did have a previously good history and that the incident was wholly out of character. It further noted that there had been no previous regulatory and disciplinary findings made against her. The panel considered that she had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both her personal and professional conduct and had contributed significantly to the education sector. In this regard, the panel noted the evidence that she had made a considerable impact in: • enhancing how her subject was taught and viewed in the school (it became the largest department); • delivering regular Saturday intervention sessions for students of a wide range of academic abilities; • developing innovative and accessible approaches to online teaching and learning (including with students outside her school); • undertaking youth work, including homework sessions, outside of the school setting; • acting as a positive role model for young Black girls. In addition to the 16 references provided by former colleagues and students alike, the panel were particularly struck by the extremely positive descriptions of Ms Robin’s abilities as a teacher from the TRA witnesses who gave oral evidence.” A prohibition order would prevent Ms Robin from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In reaching my decision I have given very careful consideration to the panel’s concluding remarks: “The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and 23 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum of dishonesty conduct issues and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. In making this recommendation, the panel acknowledged that proven allegations relating to dishonest conduct around encouraging and assisting students to obtain an unfair advantage in an examination are an extremely serious matter and that any teacher found guilty of such allegations could quite reasonably expect a prohibition order to be the end result of any regulatory proceedings against them. However, in the view of the panel, there were three key factors which meant that, in the particular circumstances of this case, such a decision would not have been proportionate: • The momentary and impulsive nature of her behaviour, which occurred over a short period of time on one occasion; • The extremely low risk of repetition evidenced by Ms Robin’s substantial insight and remorse regarding her behaviour; • The compelling evidence of exceptionally high standards previously demonstrated by Ms Robin on a professional and personal level. Accordingly, the panel determined that it was not necessary to recommend a prohibition order in this case.” While noting that the misconduct in this case was serious, deliberate and committed in the absence of extreme duress, I agree with the panel’s assessment and conclusion as set out above. Therefore, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to Ms Robin as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision maker: Marc Cavey 24 OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL- FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Date: 1 May 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State. 25