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:

1541669

Teacher's’ date of birth:

14 April 1990

Location teacher worked:

Gravesend, south east England

Date of professional conduct panel:

17 to 21 June 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 Jennifer Arding, formerly employed in Gravesend, south east England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 17 June 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.

DQG 0V -HQQLIHU $UGLQJ 3URIHVVLRQDO FRQGXFW SDQHO RXWFRPH 3DQHO GHFLVLRQ DQG UHDVRQV RQ EHKDOI RI WKH 6HFUHWDU\ RI 6WDWH IRU (GXFDWLRQ -XQH  Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Jennifer Arding Teacher ref number: 1541669 Teacher date of birth: 14 April 1990 TRA reference: 17521 Date of determination: 21 June 2019 Former employer: St John's Catholic Comprehensive School, Kent A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 to 21 June 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the cases of Ms Jennifer Arding and The panel members were Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Ian Carter (teacher panellist) and Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Ms Arding was present and was represented by Mr Shyam Thakerar of The 36 Group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er conduct as may be found proven at allegation 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. 4. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. Ms Arding admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(d), 1(e), 2(a) to 2(d) and 3. Ms Arding further admitted that her conduct in relation to these admitted allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Ms Arding denied allegations 1(c) and 4 and that her conduct in relation to these allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Preliminary applications Applications to admit additional documentation The panel considered the following applications to admit additional documentation: On the first day of the hearing: 1. An application by the TRA to admit a previous signed version of Ms Arding's statement of agreed and disputed facts; 2. 3. A joint application by the TRA and Ms Arding to admit a statement of agreed and disputed facts signed by Ms Arding on 17 June 2019; 4. 5. An application by Ms Arding to admit her witness statement dated 17 June 2019; 6. 7. 6 8. 9. In relation to each of these applications, the panel had careful regard to the parties' submissions and accepted the legal advice provided. Having considered the parties' applications, the panel decided to admit the documents identified in numbered paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 above. There was no dispute as to the fact that these documents were relevant to the issues to be determined by the panel. It was also appropriate to admit the documents in the interests of fairness. There was no objection to the admission of the documents. It was regrettable, particularly in relation to those documents that were introduced after the first day of the hearing that the documents had not been made available at an earlier stage. However, there was an explanation in each instance and the panel concluded that it was appropriate that they be admitted. These documents were added to the case papers, marked pages 339 to 364 in the order set out above. However, in relation to the first document identified above, the panel did not consider it was appropriate for it to be admitted. The panel took account of the submission made by the presenting officer that Ms Arding had made fuller admissions in the original, signed statement of agreed and disputed facts such that the document was relevant and ought to be explored. However, the panel noted the explanation put forward on behalf of Ms Arding as to why she subsequently changed her position, on advice. In summary, it was submitted that she had signed the original version in error and that the later version was consistent with her witness statement. It was apparent that the TRA was notified of Ms Arding's change of position within a short period of time and the previous version had never been admitted in evidence. The panel considered that it would be unfair, in those circumstances, to admit this document. Application to exclude part of Individual C and Individual D’s witness statements from the evidence The panel considered an application, made jointly by the TRA and to exclude certain passages from the witness statement of Individual C and Individual D. 7 The relevant passages from Individual C’s evidence were: Paragraphs 3 to 5; The second sentence in paragraph 16; Part of the final sentence in paragraph 24 after the word 'drunkest'; Part of the first sentence in paragraph 27 after the word 'odd'; and The words 'first and had' in the final sentence of paragraph 55. The relevant passages from Individual D’s statement were: Paragraphs 5 to 7; Part of the first sentence in paragraph 12 after the word 'rumour'; and Part of the first sentence in paragraph 16 after the word 'Arding'. Both parties submitted that these passages were irrelevant and/or prejudicial. Having carefully considered the parties' submissions and the legal advice provided, which was accepted, the panel agreed. In light of the specific allegations against and Ms Arding, the passages in question were irrelevant and prejudicial and ought to be excluded. Application for Individual C to give evidence by video/Skype link An application was made by the TRA for Individual C to give evidence by way of video link/Skype. The panel was informed that Individual C was in Italy on a school trip. No objection to the application was raised on behalf of or Ms Arding. In light of the parties' submissions and the legal advice provided, which was accepted, the panel agreed to the application. Whilst it was regrettable that Individual C was not able to attend the hearing in person, particularly as he had been given prior notice of it, the panel considered that fairness to the parties and the interests of justice were such that it was acceptable to hear from him in the manner proposed. Whilst the arrangements proposed were not ideal, the panel considered that it was better to hear from Individual C by video link/Skype than not at all. There was no prejudice to and Ms Arding having regard to the fact that they did not object to the application, the nature of Individual C’s evidence and the extensive admissions made by and Ms Arding. 8 D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of d