Ms Erin Dempsey

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 Erin Dempsey

Teacher reference number: 4243134

Teacher's date of birth: 01 December 1998

Location teacher worked: Berkshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 to 12 December 2025

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 Erin Dempsey, formerly employed in Berkshire, South East 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 Erin Dempsey: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Erin Dempsey Teacher ref number: 4243134 Teacher date of birth: 1 December 1998 TRA reference: 23969 Date of determination: 12 December 2025 Former employer: Furze Platt Senior School, Berkshire. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 to 12 December 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Erin Dempsey. The panel members w ere Ms Rachel Kruger (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr s Clare Russell (teacher panellist) and Dr Louise Wallace (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jonathan White of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Ms Dempsey was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 29 August 2025. It was alleged that Ms Erin Dempsey was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. She failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Parent A, in that; a. She engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional communication with Parent A in that she; i. Suggested to Parent A that some of her colleagues picked on and/or targeted Pupil A; ii. Suggested to Parent A that Pupil A was “not the only one to have issues with [Colleague A]” iii. Suggested to Parent A that Pupil A’s Father attending a meeting would show him “how [Colleague A] and the school view and treat [Pupil A]”. 2. She failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, by; a) Providing her number to Pupil A; b) Communicating with Pupil A using her personal mobile number; c) Engaging in one or more phone calls with Pupil A; d) Offering and/or giving Pupil A chocolate on one or more occasions; e) Engaging in inappropriate and/or unprofessional communication with Pupil A in that she; i. Suggested to Pupil A that the school was looking for a reason to suspend him; ii. Suggested to Pupil A that the school treats him poorly; iii. Suggested to Pupil A that he should attend a Spanish lesson because a certain colleague was away; 3. She engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour and/or failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken to safeguard one or more pupils in that she; a) failed to report that Pupil A had been vaping; b) failed to report that multiple pupils were congregating in one toilet cubicle; 5 c) shared confidential information regarding pupils at the school with Pupil A and/or Parent A; d) amended Pupil A’s attendance data on one or more occasions; e) amended Pupil A’s records to appear that Pupil A had attended a detention when this was not the case on one or more occasions; 4. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegation 3(c) and/or 3(d) and/or 3(e) was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations were not admitted. The panel received and accepted the legal advice provided by the legal adviser. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 19 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 62 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 64 to 184 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 257 In addition, the panel also received an Application Form dated 8 December 2025, relating to an application to proceed in absence. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents with in the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document referred to above. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the presenting officer: [REDACTED] 6 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 Dempsey was employed by Furze Platt Senior School (“the school”) as a history teacher from 1 September 2023 until 23 April 2024. Ms Dempsey qualified as a teacher in Canada, but was an unqualified teacher in England. Pupil A was in Ms Dempsey’s history class. Ms Dempsey was not Pupil A’s form tutor and did not teach him any other subject. On 11 March 2024 the school became aware that Ms Dempsey and Pupil A were in contact with each other using personal mobile phones. Pupil A shared messages between himself and Ms Dempsey on his mobile phone with the school. The school commenced an investigation, and Ms Dempsey was suspended on 14 March 2024. The investigation was conducted by [REDACTED]. As part of that investigation, the school reviewed Ms Dempsey’s work email account, as well as the messages shown by Pupil A. Ms Dempsey resigned on 23 April 2024. On 27 June 2024 a referral was made to the TRA. 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: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a History Teacher for Furze Platt Senior School, you; 1. You failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Parent A, in that; a. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional communication with Parent A in that you; i. Suggested to Parent A that some of your colleagues picked on and/or targeted Pupil A; ii. Suggested to Parent A that Pupil A was “not the only one to have issues with [Colleague A]” 7 iii. Suggested to Parent A that Pupil A’s Father attending a meeting would show him “how [Colleague A] and the school view and treat [Pupil A]”; 2. You failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, by; a. Providing your number to Pupil A; b. Communicating with Pupil A using your personal mobile number; c. Engaging in one or more phone calls with Pupil A; d. Offering and/or giving Pupil A chocolate on one or more occasions; e. Engaging in inappropriate and/or unprofessional communication with Pupil A in that you; i. Suggested to Pupil A that the school was looking for a reason to suspend him; ii. [not proved] iii. Suggested to Pupil A that he should attend a Spanish lesson because a certain colleague was away; 3. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour and/or failed to take appropriate action and/or ensure appropriate action was taken to safeguard one or more pupils in that you; a. failed to report that Pupil A had been vaping; b. failed to report that multiple pupils were congregating in one toilet cubicle; c. shared confidential information regarding pupils at the school with Pupil A and/or Parent A; d. amended Pupil A’s attendance data on one or more occasions; e. Amended Pupil A’s records to appear that Pupil A had attended a detention when this was not the case on one or more occasions; 4. Your conduct as may be found proven at allegation 3(c) and/or 3(d) and/or 3(e) was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. In relation to Allegation 1, the panel was presented with emails sent from Ms Dempsey to Parent A about Pupil A. In relation to Allegation 1 a) i), this included an email sent on 19 November 2023 in which Ms Dempsey wrote: 8 “I don’t agree with him being targeted by some because it’s not helping when it comes to his classes because he’s less likely to do work if he feels like you’re picking on him or accusing him of something.” The panel found on the balance of probabilities that this email suggested to Parent A that Pupil A was being targeted by some of Ms Dempsey’s colleagues. In relation to Allegation 1 a) ii), the same email went on to state: “Those two do not see eye to eye but [Pupil A] isn’t the only one who has issues with him”. The reference to “those two” was plainly a reference to Pupil A and Colleague A. The panel found on the balance of probabilities that this email suggested to Parent A that Pupil A was not the only pupil to have issues with Colleague A. In relation to Allegation 1 a) iii), the panel was presented with an email dated 26 February 2024 in which Ms Dempsey wrote to Parent A: “You deserve a break from meetings, and this will help show his dad how [Colleague A] and the school view and treat him.” The panel found on the balance of probabilities that this email suggested to Parent A that Pupil A’s father attending a meeting would show him how the school viewed and treated Pupil A. The panel heard evidence from [REDACTED] who stated that the school would expect communications between staff and parents to be professional and appropriate to the staff member’s role. Ms Dempsey was not Pupil A’s form tutor or his pastoral manager . [REDACTED] told the panel that the emails Ms Dempsey wrote to Parent A fell short of the school’s expectations. [REDACTED] further stated that if Ms Dempsey had concerns about another teacher, there were ways to report that concern under the school’s safeguardin g procedures and the whistleblowing po