Ms Kate Barnes-Kidd

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 Kate Barnes-Kidd

Teacher reference number: 1085089

Teacher's date of birth: 16 June 1990

Location teacher worked: Windsor, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 to 13 November 2024

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 Kate Barnes-Kidd, formerly employed in Windsor, 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 Kate Barnes-Kidd: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Kate Barnes-Kidd Teacher ref number: 1085089 Teacher date of birth: 16 June 1990 TRA reference: 21944 Date of determination: 13 November 2024 Former employer: Queen Anne Royal Free Church of England First School, Windsor Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 11 to 13 November 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Kate Barnes-Kidd. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bev Williams (teacher panellist) and Ms Emma Garrett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Ms Barnes-Kidd was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 27 August 2024 as amended at the start of the hearing. You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Whilst applying for the role of SENCO at the Queen Anne Royal Free Church of England First School and/or following your appointment, you: a. Provided an email address purporting to be for the headteacher at Alexander First School for the purpose of your job application which was false and was an account that you controlled yourself; b. Submitted a false reference using the e-mail account at 1a when the Queen Anne Royal Free Church of England First School requested a refence. 2. Whilst employed at the Alexander First School you provided false information in order to obtain paid leave by: a. Stating that Individual A had left you and that you would need time off for Individual A to collect belongings from the property; b. Stating that Individual B was receiving [REDACTED] treatment and had been [REDACTED]; c. Providing false letters to the school in regard to your [REDACTED]. 3. Your conduct as may be found proven at 1 and/or 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. The panel noted that Ms Barnes-Kidd admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) and 3, and further admitted that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as set out in the response to the notice of proceedings, signed by Ms Barnes-Kidd on 23 September 2024. 5 Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Ms Barnes-Kidd was not present at the hearing nor was she represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Ms Barnes-Kidd. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to the panel, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the notice of proceedings had been sent to Ms Barnes-Kidd in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel concluded that Ms Barnes-Kidd’s absence was voluntary and that she was aware that the matter would proceed in her absence. The panel noted that Ms Barnes-Kidd had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure her attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Ms Barnes-Kidd was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. The panel noted that Ms Barnes-Kidd had not completed a Statement of Agreed Facts in advance of this hearing. However, the panel considered that Ms Barnes-Kidd had received the notice of proceedings and notice of hearing within the requisite timeframe in advance of the hearing and the fact that she had not engaged with the TRA save for completing and returning the notice of proceedings. The panel noted that within the completed notice of proceedings signed and dated by Ms Barnes-Kidd on 23 September 2024 she had answered yes to the question as to whether she admitted the allegations and the panel also noted the fact that she had been given a copy of the allegations and advance notice that the hearing was taking place. As such, the panel was satisfied that Ms Barnes-Kidd had been given ample opportunity to engage in the hearing process and that it was therefore appropriate to proceed in her absence. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Ms Barnes-Kidd was neither present nor represented. 6 Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from the presenting officer that part of the hearing - [REDACTED] - should be heard in private. The panel granted the application. The panel considered 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 Barnes-Kidd’s private life and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in public. 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 therefore granted the application. Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegations to change the reference from “Queen Anne School (Windsor)” to “Queen Anne Royal Free Church of England Free School” and to change the word “on” within allegation 1(a) to “for the purpose of”. The panel noted that Ms Barnes-Kidd had been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations albeit not in the requisite timeframe under the Procedures in advance of the hearing. However, the panel did note that Ms Barnes-Kidd had been given ample opportunity to engage in the proceedings, that she had been sent a copy of the allegations and the amended allegations and had chosen to have limited engagement in the proceedings. Further, the panel noted that the amendments did not impact the substance of the allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendments would not change the nature and scope of the allegations in that the allegations would remain the same. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. 7 The panel was also of the view that Ms Barnes-Kidd had been given the opportunity to respond to the original and the amended allegations. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered an application from the presenting officer at the start of the hearing to admit a supplementary applications bundle and a separate application on day two of the hearing for the admission of additional documents. The application at the start of the hearing was to admit a document containing the presenting officer’s applications for procedural matters relating to the hearing. The application made on day two of the hearing was in relation to the presenting officer’s documents which were correspondence between Ms Barnes-Kidd and Queen Anne Royal Free CE First School (“QA School”) regarding the email address provided for Ms Barnes-Kidd’s reference which the panel had requested from the presenting officer. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology – page 4 • Section 2: Notice of referral and notice of proceedings – pages 6 to 43 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 45 to 113 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 115 to 143 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: 8 • Supplementary applications bu