Ms Helena Eckles

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 Helena Eckles

Teacher reference number: 9354484

Teacher's date of birth: 25 July 1972

Location teacher worked: Wakefield, Yorkshire and The Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 April 2026

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 Helena Eckles formerly employed in Wakefield, Yorkshire and The Humber.

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.

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Ms Helena Eckles: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Helena Eckles Teacher ref number: 9354484 Teacher date of birth: 25 July 1972 TRA reference: 24684 Date of determination: 17 April 2026 Former employer: Hall Cliffe Primary School, Wakefield Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by way of virtual hearing on 17 April 2026 to consider the case of Ms Helena Eckles. The panel members were Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Georgina Bean (teacher panellist) and Mr Chris Major (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Silas Lee of Mountford Chambers. Ms Eckles was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save those portions of the hearing which were heard in private and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 14 January 2026. It was alleged that Ms Eckles was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 7 March 2025, she was convicted at Leeds Magistrates Court for the offence of assault by beating contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39. Ms Eckles admitted the fact of the conviction in the hearing, but denied that she was convicted for a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 3 Section 2: Notice of referral/response and notice of hearing/response – pages 4 to 32 Section 3: TRA documents – pages 33 to 55 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 56 to 65 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 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 No witnesses were called to provide oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel found that around November 2023, Ms Eckles commenced employment as a teacher at Hall Cliffe Primary School (‘the School’). On 21 May 2024, an allegation was made that Ms Eckles had slapped Pupil A across the face. On 21 May 2024, a referral was made to the LADO, and the incident was reported to West Yorkshire police via the non-emergency line. The West Yorkshire police then commenced a criminal investigation. On 20 June 2024, Ms Eckles attended a voluntary interview with the police during which she denied intentionally assaulting the pupil and provided her account of the incident. On 7 November 2024, the matter was referred to the TRA. On 7 March 2025, it is alleged that Ms Eckles was convicted at Leeds Magistrates Court for the offence of assault by beating contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On 7 March 2025, you were convicted at Leeds Magistrates Court for the offence of assault by beating contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39. The panel noted that Ms Eckles admitted this allegation at the hearing but did not admit that her conviction was for a relevant offence. The panel considered the response to the notice of referral form signed by Ms Eckles on 2 June 2026. Within the form, Ms Eckles denied allegation 1 and subsequently denied that her conduct amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. The panel proceeded to make a determination based on the facts available to it and proceeded to adopt a cautious and considered approach including in relation to the matter of whether or not the conviction constituted a “relevant” offence. The panel noted that the conviction referred to “Helen” rather than “Helena” Eckles but noted also that Ms Eckles admitted the conviction which the panel had before it was her conviction. The panel noted that Ms Eckles had chosen not to give live evidence. The panel also noted that she relied on the documents within the bundle including, without limitation, her initial report of the incident, her notes and her impact statement as setting out her position. The panel carefully considered those documents. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel noted that since Ms Eckles had not given live evidence these documents were hearsay evidence but admitted and considered them carefully giving them reasonable weight as setting out Ms Eckles’ position, especially on noting that it had been directed to those documents by Ms Eckles in her submissions. The panel observed that in the initial report of the incident by Ms Eckles, dated 21 May 2024, Ms Eckles described that on Tuesday 21 May 2024, pupils had been playing games on laptops after completing their learning and had been instructed to put them away. She stated that all pupils complied except Pupil A, who refused and said that he was in the middle of a game. Ms Eckles recorded that she told Pupil A he could continue until he had “died” in the game and then he needed to shut down the laptop. Ms Eckles described observing that Pupil A appeared red in the face and that he continued to refuse to put the laptop away. Ms Eckles stated that after repeated instructions, she began unplugging the mouse and power cable and attempted to close the laptop lid, with [REDACTED] standing several feet away in support. She stated that while she was attempting to hand the laptop to the [REDACTED], Pupil A flailed his arms, tried to push her away and grab the laptop, and that she “overbalanced slightly backwards on her left foot and stepped forward with her right foot to steady herself.” Ms Eckles stated that as she did so, her right arm came forward involuntarily and that her open palm came into contact with Pupil A’s face lightly as he moved on his chair. She stated that there was no force or horizontal movement from her arm or hand and that any contact was completely unintentional and accidental. Ms Eckles further recorded that Pupil A immediately shouted that she had slapped him and ran out of the room shouting in the corridor. Ms Eckles recorded that she continued teaching and that Pupil A did not return to the classroom for the remainder of the afternoon. The panel noted and considered the “Relevant Information” document from the police with which it had been provided. The panel noted that this document was hearsay and placed reasonable weight on it. The panel noted that it was recorded in that document that the victim of the offence of which Ms Eckles had been convicted was [REDACTED] and attended the school at which Ms Eckles was a teacher. It noted that the conviction was concerned with Ms Eckles slapping that pupil and that this action was witnessed by [REDACTED] and that the victim had a visible injury; a red handprint type mark on his left cheek which the police form stated was documented within the safeguarding concerns document files of the School. The report also contained Ms Eckles’ account of the facts which the panel found was consistent with Ms Eckles’ account in the documents which she had provided to the panel. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which provided 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 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. On careful consideration, including of Ms Eckles’ account of the wider circumstances, the panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Leeds Magistrates’ Court dated 31 March 2025, which detailed that Ms Eckles had been convicted of assault by beating on 7 March 2025. The panel noted that the issue of whether or not Ms Eckles pleaded guilty was not clearly evidenced but that Ms Eckles’ position was that she did not. In respect of the offence, Ms Eckles was sentenced to a community order to be complied with by 30 March 2026; a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 5 days; and an unpaid work requirement of 150 hours to be completed within twelve months. The panel was satisfied that it had conclusive proof of the conviction and noted that the teacher admitted to the conviction. The panel found allegation 1 proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Ms Eckles, in relation to the facts found prov