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:

8814411

Teacher's date of birth:

7 May 1962

Location teacher worked:

Gloucestershire, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel:

8 to 10 October 2018, 9 and 11 January 2019 and 15 February 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 Elizabeth Hart formerly employed in Gloucestershire, South West England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 8 to 10 October 2018, 9 and 11 January 2019 and 15 February 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.

Elizabeth Karen Hart: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2019 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 24 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 27 2 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Elizabeth Hart Teacher ref number: 8814411 Teacher date of birth: 07 May 1962 TRA reference: 0012164 Date of determination: 15 February 2019 Former employer: Field Court Church of England Infants Academy, Gloucestershire A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened between 8 and 10 October 2018 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT; and again between 9 and 11 January, and 15 February 2019 at the Ramada Hotel, Coventry, CV1 3GG. The panel members were Ms Marjorie Harris, (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Phillip Riggon (teacher panellist) and Ms Mahfia Watkinson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Tom Walker of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Ms Hart was not present or represented for the first 5 days of the hearing, but attended on 11 January 2019. Ms Hart was not present or represented on 15 February 2019. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 3 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 1 June 2018. It was alleged that Ms Hart was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: Whilst employed as a Head Teacher at Field Court Church of England Infants Academy in Gloucestershire between January 2005 and June 2014, she: 1. Was responsible for irregularities in the financial management of the school, in that she made purchases or payments using school funds which were unreasonable in that they were not solely for the benefit of the school and/or did not represent value for money for the school, including but not limited to: a. spending approximately £3,800 at independent stores/retailers including gift and flower shops between February 2012 and November 2013; b. spending approximately £5,000 at supermarkets such as Waitrose, Sainsbury's and Tesco between January 2012 and November 2013; c. making approximately 43 purchases at high end stores such as Marks & Spencer, John Lewis, House of Fraser, Harvey Nichols and Next totalling approximately £3,500 between January 2012 and November 2013; d. spending approximately £3,700 at home/garden improvement retailers such as B&Q, Homesense, Countrywide Farmers Plc and the Garden Centre between January 2012 and January 2014; e. made approximately 95 purchases during school holidays between March 2012 and January 2014; f. spending a total of approximately £900 on expenses such as petrol, flight and hotel costs between April 2012 and January 2014; g. spending approximately £225 at Apple iTunes between February 2012 and August 2013; h. making approximately 7 transactions at coffee houses/bakeries/pubs/restaurants totalling approximately £235 between April 2012 and November 2013; i. made approximately 15 purchases at clothing retailers such as Primark, Zara, Monsoon and New Look totalling approximately £495 between March 2012 and December 2013. 2. Failed to present receipts and/or invoices for approximately 320 transactions between January 2012 and January 2014. 4 3. Collected money within school for staff gifts purchased using the school's charge card but failed to reimburse school funds. 4. Her conduct at 1, 2 and 3 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Ms Hart did not admit the facts. The allegations were taken not to have been admitted. C. Preliminary applications The case first sat between 8 and 10 October 2018. At this first hearing of the case, the panel decided to proceed in the absence of Ms Hart, and the panel then decided to adjourn the case to enable receipt of additional information (see decision dated 10 October 2018). The additional information was received by the panel on 4 January 2019 and has also been sent to Ms Hart. For completeness, the additional material, which includes a transcript of a police interview with Ms Hart, is relevant to the allegations and the panel has decided it is fair for this material to be admitted as pages A1 to A140. The new hearing dates of 9 to 11 January 2019 were communicated to Ms Hart on 12 October 2018 and she was aware that the hearing would resume on that date, i.e. 9 January 2019 (see page A1). By way of email correspondence between pages A140 to A145 Ms Hart indicated to the TRA that she was minded to attend the hearing on Friday 11 January 2019 "to answer any questions". The TRA in turn wrote to Ms Hart to explain that this would require an application to adjourn the proceedings starting 9 January 2019 until 11 January 2019 and that no such application had been made. Ms Hart in turn responded stating that "nobody had told her" that she needed to attend on 9 January 2019. The Presenting Officer, having placed this email material before the panel made an application on behalf of the TRA to proceed in the absence of Ms Hart on the basis that adjourning until 11 January 2019 prejudiced the public interest in timely and efficient regulatory proceedings in that, almost inevitably, a further adjournment would be needed. The Presenting Officer also highlighted the fact that Ms Hart was not indicating that she had additional evidence, simply that she wished to attend to answer any questions. The Presenting Officer also highlighted that whilst Ms Hart was informed on 12 October 2018 that the hearing would resume on 9 January 2019 she did not respond to the TRA until 6 January 2019, and only on 8 January 2019 indicted that she wished to attend. The panel is of the view that it is obvious from the very nature of these proceedings, and the available guidance (which has been made available to Ms Hart) that the hearing would resume on 9 January 2019 and proceed in stages in accordance with the Disciplinary Rules. Ms Hart was made aware of this on 12 October 2018 and therefore 5 has had plenty of time to make arrangements to attend the hearing. In the event of any confusion on the part of Ms Hart it was open to her to clarify matters with the TRA after 12 October 2018, and this was not done. The panel adjourned the case on the last occasion to enable it to receive relevant evidence, which included the police interview transcript, in which Ms Hart is questioned on matters relevant to these allegations, and on which she had relied on in her defence in written representations to the TRA previously. The panel notes that Ms Hart has not:  requested an adjournment of this case for any particular reason;  explained in detail why she is unable to attend on 9 January 2019 given the fact that she was on notice of the resumed proceedings on 12 October 2018;  indicated to the panel that she wishes to attend to present her case or provide additional evidence; or  provided an explanation as to why she did not engage with the TRA on this matter prior to 6 January 2019. The panel has had regard to Rules 4.27 to 4.35 and has received advice in relation to the consideration of proceeding in the absence of the teacher and has accepted that advice. The panel notes the public interest in regulatory proceedings taking place in a timely and efficient manner, but has also had regard to the prime importance of ensuring a fair hearing to the teacher. Ms Hart is aware that the case is due to recommence on 9 January 2019 and is, or should have been aware, that she is at liberty to attend these proceedings. She has chosen not to attend today, and has thus waived, whether wilfully or otherwise, her interest in fully participating in these proceedings. Ms Hart has not provided an explanation as to what evidence she intends to present to the hearing, and the panel is not satisfied that proceeding in the absence of Ms Hart, having already adjourned to receive evidence relevant to her defence, would be contrary to the interests of justice. The panel has therefore decided to proceed in the absence of Ms Hart. This decision was communicated to Ms Hart by the TRA by email on 9 January 2019. The panel then proceeded to hear a closing submission from the Presenting Officer, and then retired to consider its decision on the same day. The panel continued its deliberations on 10 January 2019. However, prior to reaching a decision, at approximately 14h30, the panel received a notification from the TRA that Ms Hart had expressed a wish to be afforded an opportunity to make closing submissions to the panel. 6 The panel took the view that if Ms Hart wished to attend the hearing, she should have done so on 9 January 2019, and she had ample opportunity to do so. However, given th