Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

8538548

Teacher's date of birth:

14 July 1964

Location teacher worked:

Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

14 to 15 January 2019

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 Caroline Reilly formerly employed in Birmingham, West Midlands.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 14 to 15 January 2019.

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 Caroline Reilly: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 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 Caroline Reilly Teacher ref number: 8538548 Teacher date of birth: 14 July 1964 TRA reference: 9324 Date of determination: 15 January 2019 A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 to 15 January 2019 at Cheylesmore House, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Ms Caroline Reilly. The panel members were Mr Ian Carter (teacher/panellist – in the chair), Ms Karen McArthur (lay panellist) and Mr Roger Woods (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Anna Lois Parry of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexis Dite of Kingsley Napley LLP. Ms Caroline Reilly 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 22 May 2018. It was alleged that Ms Caroline Reilly was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Failed to disclose her relationship with a convicted sex offender (person A) to her employer despite the advice she received from the Director of Operations and Performance at the National Probation Service dated 17 February 2010. 2. Mislead the investigation by stating she was advised that there was no reason for her to disclose that she had a relationship with a convicted sex offender to her employer; 3. Failed to demonstrate insight into how her relationship with a convicted sex offender may have impacted on her role as head teacher; 4. Her conduct at paragraphs 1 and 2 was dishonest. The allegations were not admitted. C. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the teacher’s absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 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 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understood 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 making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from 5 the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The teacher was aware of the proceedings. She has engaged with the process and recently contacted the TRA case officer to indicate that she could not attend the hearing and requested an adjournment. She provided no evidence to support her contention that she could not attend the hearing. The TRA requested further information including [Redacted] evidence which Ms Reilly did not supply. The TRA contacted Ms Reilly again and informed her that panel would need to make a decision whether to proceed in her absence and that it would assist the panel if she could provide it with [Redacted] evidence. The TRA also offered to make provisions to facilitate the teacher’s participation in the hearing. The panel had regard to the recent Court of Appeal case of the GMC v Ijaz Hayat. In that case, the professional provided [Redacted] evidence but the tribunal found it was not sufficiently detailed as it did not demonstrate why she could not participate in the hearing. The Court of Appeal found that the Tribunal was right to reach the conclusion to proceed with the hearing in the professional’s absence. Whilst stating that she was not refusing to attend the hearing, the panel saw no evidence to support Ms Reilly’s request for an adjournment or to persuade it that an adjournment would be in the interest of justice. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. The panel also had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give her account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against her. The panel had the benefit of representations made by the teacher during an investigation by the Council. In addition, she has prepared a detailed witness statement in preparation for these proceedings and most recently in September 2018 had provided a response to each of the allegations in her response to the notice of proceedings. The panel was able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel noted that two witnesses were being called to give evidence and the panel could test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it. It noted that should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, it may take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also able 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. The panel also noted that two witnesses were present at the hearing, who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for them to return again. It also noted that the hearing has previously been adjourned on four separate occasions. It considered that it was in the interest of justice for the hearing to proceed. In light of the 6 lack of any evidence, the panel was not persuaded that an adjournment would result in the teacher attending at a later date. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher. It accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. However, by taking such measures referred to above, the panel considered that it could address that unfairness insofar as is possible. The panel took account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses, the seriousness of the allegation and the public interest, and considered on balance that the hearing should proceed today. Application to correct allegation 2 The presenting officer made an application to correct allegation 2 insofar as a typographical error appeared in the wording. The first word of the allegation was “mislead” and the presenting officer applied to correct this to “misled”. Under paragraph 4.56 of the Procedures, the panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. The panel did not consider that there was any risk of prejudice being caused to the teacher; the amendment simply corrected a typographical error. It did not alter the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegation. The panel decided to amend the allegation as requested by the presenting officer. Application to admit a disputed document as evidence The panel considered the application made by the presenting officer to adduce into evidence the Supreme Court’s Judgment dated 14 March 2018 which concerned Ms Reilly’s employment case. The panel noted that the teacher would have already had sight of this information. The panel carefully considered the representations of the presenting officer and that of the teacher, in so far as they were referred to by the presenting officer in his application. The panel had regard to the fact that it decided to proceed with the hearing in the teacher’s absence. It exercised caution when considering whether to exercise its discretion (under paragraph 4.26) to waive the notice periods required for the service of documents and whether it would be fair (under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures) to admit this Judgement into evidence. To assist it with its decision, and determine the relevance of the Judgement of the Supreme Court, the panel read the Judgement. It noted in particular, that the function of the Supreme Court and the question it was determining was limited; it was deciding whether the Employment Tribunal had been entitled to conclude dismissal was within the range of reasonable responses of her employer. The panel on the other hand has to turn its own mind to the specific facts alleged. The panel did not consider that the Judgement adduces new factual information which is pertinent to the facts of this case. The panel was not persuaded as to its relevance. 7 In considering the reasonableness of Ms Reilly’s belief, the panel would have the opportunity to question the witnesses to understand more about how her disclosure would have aided her role as a head teacher