Ms Eleanor Howell

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 Eleanor Howell

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 December 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 Eleanor Howell formerly employed in Birmingham, West Midlands

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 Eleanor Howell: Professional conduct panel hearing Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Eleanor Howell TRA reference: 21353 Date of determination: 11 December 2024 Former employer: Baskerville School, Birmingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 11 December 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Ms Eleanor Howell. The panel members were Ms Susan Ridge (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Maurice Smith (lay panellist) and Ms Samantha Haslam (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Natalie Kent of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Alecsandra Manning-Rees of 5 St Andrew’s Hill Chambers, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Ms Howell was present and was represented by Ms Megan Fletcher-Smith of Cornwall Street Barristers, instructed by Thompsons Solicitors. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 3 September 2024. It was alleged that Ms Howell was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 10/03/2022 you were convicted of the following offence: a) Driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on 22/02/22 contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(1)(a) at Birmingham and Solihull magistrates. Ms Howell admitted the facts of allegation 1(a) within her witness statement and at the commencement of the hearing, admitted that this amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from the teacher’s representative that part of the hearing [REDACTED], [REDACTED] should be heard in private. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer and the teacher’s representative on the application before reaching its decision. The presenting officer did not object to the application. The panel granted the application. The panel considered that whilst there was a presumption that professional conduct hearings be heard in public, it was not contrary to the public interest for the part of the hearing, which was the subject of the application, to be heard in private. The panel considered that the areas covered in the application legitimately related to aspects of Ms Howell’s private life and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in private. The hearing was still being held in public and these were discrete and limited areas which would not undermine the public's ability to otherwise understand the case. The panel recognised that allowing these sections of the hearing to be heard in private would enable Ms Howell to give the best evidence. The panel therefore granted the application. 5 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 3 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response to notice of hearing – pages 6 to 12 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 13 to 48 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 49 to 58 The panel members confirmed that they had read all the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The TRA did not call any witnesses to give evidence at the hearing. The panel heard the oral evidence of Ms Howell. 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 Howell was employed at Baskerville School (“the School”) from 16 March 2021 as a supply teacher via a recruitment agency, PK Education. On 22 February 2022, an incident occurred in which West Midlands Police were called to a road traffic collision involving Ms Howell and [REDACTED]. Ms Howell was arrested for consuming alcohol over the legal limit to drive. On 10 March 2022, Ms Howell was found guilty of the offence of “driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol” and was disqualified from driving for 18 months. As a result, [REDACTED] made a referral to the TRA on 15 December 2022. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On 10/03/2022 you were convicted of the following offence: 6 a) Driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on 22/02/22 contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s.5(1)(a) at Birmingham and Solihull magistrates. The panel noted that Ms Howell admitted the facts of this allegation but nonetheless considered all the evidence before it and came to a decision. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the memorandum of conviction from Birmingham and Solihull Magistrates Court which set out that Ms Howell pleaded guilty to the offence and on the 10 March 2022, Ms Howell was convicted of driving a motor vehicle on a road after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of her breath exceeded the prescribed limit. In respect of the conviction, Ms Howell was fined £200; ordered to pay a surcharge to fund victim services of £34; ordered to pay costs of £135 to the Crown Prosecution Service; a collection order made and disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 18 months, to be reduced by 18 weeks if by the 6 March 2023 Ms Howell satisfactorily completed a course approved by the secretary of state that is not to exceed £250. Ms Howell’s driving record was also endorsed. On the basis of the memorandum of conviction and the evidence that had been provided, the panel found allegation 1(a) proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Ms Howell, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Ms Howell 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. 7 The panel noted that the individual’s actions were not directly relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting as the incident relating to the conviction had taken place in Ms Howell’s private life in her own time. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety of members of the public, but not necessarily on pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Ms Howell’s behaviour in committing the offence could undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel considered there were a number of exacerbating factors which led it to this conclusion. These were: • The significant volume of alcohol which was found in the teacher’s sample; • That the offence had resulted in a road traffic collision involving a member of the public; • That [REDACTED] had been in the car at the time and had been injured in the incident; and • That a member of the public had felt it necessary to take Ms Howell’s car keys away from her to prevent her continuing to drive. The panel noted that Ms Howell’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was potentially at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. However, the panel also noted that this was a case concerning a serious driving offence involving alcohol which the Advice states is more likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel also noted that Ms Howell herself considered that this was a serious offence and admitted that it was a relevant offence in the context of the teaching profession. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Ms Howell’s fitness to be a teacher. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession, which it considered could otherwise be weakened. The panel therefore determined that the facts of the proven allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, 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 o