Ms Charlotte Venables

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 Charlotte Venables

Location teacher worked: Harlow, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 to 4 March 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 Charlotte Venables formerly employed in Harlow, East of 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 Charlotte Venables: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Charlotte Venables TRA reference: 21589 Date of determination: 4 March 2026 Former employer: Stewards Academy - Science Specialist, Essex (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 to 4 March 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Charlotte Venables. The panel members were Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Patrick Berry (teacher panellist) and Mr Robert Della-Sala (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lucy Churchill of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr James Lloyd of Mountford Chambers, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Ms Venables was present and was represented by Mr Gurmair Singh of JSC Chambers. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 15 December 2025. It was alleged that Ms Venables was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a sports teacher at Stewards Academy: 1. On or around 6 September 2022, you used inappropriate and/or excessive force in that you: a) Pulled Child A’s ankle and/or foot off the side of a bench and onto the floor; b) Pulled Child A by the wrist and/or right arm; c) Dragged Child A across the floor and/or out of the changing room; and/or d) Pushed Child C out of the changing room. 2. On or around 6 September 2022, you did not report the incidents at paragraph one above to: a) the Academy’s Designated Safeguarding Lead; b) and/or the Headteacher; c) and/or record the incident. Ms Venables admitted to the facts of allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), and denied allegation 1(d). In respect of allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2(a), 2(b), and 2(c), she admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In respect of allegation 1(d) although she did not admit the conduct, she admitted that the conduct may be seen to amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, list of key people and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 8 to 20 5 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 21 to 31 Section 4: TRA exhibits – pages 32 to 560 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 561 to 654 In addition, the panel agreed to accept Ms Venables’ additional redacted documents, the second bundle of documents consisting of 59 pages as referred to above. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, watched three CCTV videos in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. 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 – Child A Witness B – Child C Witness C – [REDACTED] The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by Ms Venables’ representative: Ms Venables 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. On 1 September 2018, Ms Venables commenced employment as a sports teacher at the School in Harlow, Essex. On 6 September 2022, during a year 8 PE lesson, Ms Venables allegedly pulled Child A’s ankle/foot off a bench whilst she was tying her shoelaces, causing Child A to fall to the floor. She also allegedly grabbed Child A by her wrist and dragged her across the 6 changing room floor, and out into the corridor. During the same incident, Child C reported being pushed out of the changing room. On the same day, at around 5pm Child A’s parent attended the School and reported the incident to assistant headteacher Individual A. Between 7 and 9 September 2022, the preliminary fact-finding took place, during which Ms Venables denied using force on Child A. The School gathered initial student accounts, including statements from Child A, Child B, and Child C. On 21 September 2022, Ms Venables was formally suspended from duty pending the outcome of the investigation and invited to a formal investigatory meeting. On 17 November 2022, the disciplinary investigation concluded, and the completed investigation report was submitted to the headteacher. On 9 March 2023, parent of Child A reported the allegations to the TRA. On 2 May 2023, the matter was formally referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On or around 6 September 2022, you used inappropriate and/or excessive force in that you: a) Pulled Child A’s ankle and/or foot off the side of a bench and onto the floor; The panel noted Ms Venables admitted allegation 1(a). Notwithstanding Ms Venables’ admission the panel made its own determination as to the facts. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Ms Venables. She explained that she had been left by her colleague to lock up both PE changing rooms, and once all of Ms Venables’ class were out and waiting in the corridor ready to start their lesson, she locked her changing room and went over to her colleague’s changing room to lock it up. Ms Venables explained that PE staff normally give regular countdowns to pupils to encourage them to change and leave the changing room, for example starting with a minute warning and then 10 seconds and that they usually give them countdowns by standing half-way in the changing room doorway holding the door open. Ms Venables stated that she gave these countdowns on 6 September 2022, when standing in the doorway of her colleague’s class’s changing room. Ms Venables stated that Child A and Child C were the only two remaining pupils in her colleague’s changing room, and once Child C left, she went into the changing room to 7 understand what was holding up Child A, as she had not left despite repeated warnings of the need to lock up the changing room. Ms Venables admitted that she reached for Child A’s shoe, and in doing so pulled her foot off the changing room bench and in doing so Child A was pulled on to the floor. Ms Venables explained that she was concerned as both classes were ready for their lesson and were left unsupervised while she had to wait for Child A to leave the changing room. She stated that she did not have any means of calling in another member of staff for support. The panel noted that Ms Venables expressed deep regret and remorse for her actions, and that it was entirely out of character, she had not acted in this manner before and has not since the incident. Ms Venables explained that in the lead up to the incident she had been under immense personal strain which the School was not aware of. The panel noted that it was not disputed that save for this incident, Ms Venables had an unblemished record. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Child A, whereby she attested to the written statement she gave on 6 September 2022 during the School’s investigation. Within her statement to the School dated 6 September 2022, she stated that she had PE and whilst everyone was getting ready, Ms Venables counted down from 60 telling the pupils if they didn’t leave the changing room, she would lock them in. She stated that the other pupils rushed out of the changing room and that she and Child C were the last people in the changing room, and she asked for 20 more seconds to tie up her shoes. Child A stated that Ms Venables then grabbed her trainer and pulled her to the floor. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Child C, whereby they attested to the written statement they gave on 9 September 2022 during the School’s investigation. Within their statement to the School dated 9 September 2022, Child C stated that Ms Venables “grabbed Child A’s foot and dragged her off the bench.” The panel noted the investigation meeting notes with Parent A (parent of Child A) dated 26 September 2022, who reported the disclosure made to her by Child A after School on 6 September 2022. Parent A explained that Child A told her she had been the last pupil remaining in the changing room during a PE lesson and that Ms Venables had first pulled her by the foot before grabbing her wrist and placing her at the doorway. Parent A reported that, after hearing this initial disclosure, she immediately went back into the School and met with Individual A at approximately 5pm. She informed him of Child A’s account, including that Child A had been pulled by the foot while tying her shoelace. Parent A said that her primary concern was that her daughter had been physically handled inappropriately while doing nothing more than fastening her shoe. Parent A 8 stated that, once they returned home, she asked Child A to again describe what