Ms Keeley Dean

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 Keeley Dean

Teacher reference number: 0045779

Teacher's date of birth: 3 March 1978

Location teacher worked: Maidstone, south east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 November 2022 to 10 November 2022

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 Keeley Dean, formerly employed in Maidstone, 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 Keeley Dean: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Keeley Dean Teacher ref number: 0045779 Teacher date of birth: 3 March 1978 TRA reference: 19660 Date of determination: 10 November 2022 Former employer: Oakwood Park Grammar School, Maidstone Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 8 to 10 November 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Keeley Dean. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Sonia Fraser (teacher panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lucy Churchill of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Ms Dean 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 15 September 2022. It was alleged that Ms Dean was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Whilst working as a teacher at Oakwood Park Grammar School (“the School”) she failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, in that: a) between or around October 2008 and December 2008, she: i. exchanged telephone numbers with Pupil A; ii. sent one or more text messages to Pupil A; iii. agreed to meet and/or met Pupil A at the cinema. b) in or around December 2008 she: i. met Pupil A at his home; ii. kissed Pupil A; iii. had sex with Pupil A. c) b etween or around January 2009 and July 2009, she: i. met up with Pupil A at her home on one or more occasions; ii. stayed overnight in a hotel with Pupil A on an occasion in or around March 2009; iii. had sex with Pupil A on one or more occasions. 2. Her conduct at 1(a) and/or 1(b)(i) and/or 1(b)(ii) and/or 1(c)(i) and/or 1(c)(ii) was sexually motivated. Ms Dean did not make a formal admission of fact. There was no agreed statement of facts before the panel. The hearing proceeded on the basis the allegations were denied. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher 5 Ms Dean was not present at the hearing nor was she represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Ms Dean. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, 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 Dean in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel noted that Ms Dean had agreed to the short notice hearing. The panel concluded that Ms Dean’s absence was voluntary and that she was aware that the matter would proceed in her absence. The panel noted that Ms Dean had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure her attendance at a future hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Ms Dean 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. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as poss ible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Ms Dean was neither present nor represented. Application for the anonymisation of a witness The panel considered an application from the presenting officer for the identity of a witness in this matter to be anonymised. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. The presenting officer confirmed Ms Dean and her representative were aware of the application and did not have an objection to it. The panel did not grant the application. The panel considered it was not in the public interest for the name of the witness, who was the subject of the application, to be anonymised. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: 6 • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 5 to 7 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 46 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – 46 to 78 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 79 to 367 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 368 to 371. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. The panel noted the emails contained within Section 5 of the bundle of documents confirm Ms Dean’s decision not submit any documentation for the Panel’s consideration. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Pupil A, [REDACTED] • Person B, [REDACTED] • Pupil C, [REDACTED] • Pupil D, [REDACTED] • Person A, [REDACTED] 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 Dean commenced employment at the School as a subject leader for Geography on 1 September 2001. In September 2002, Pupil A joined the School as a [REDACTED] pupil. In August 2008, Ms Dean emailed pupils including Pupil A, to ask how they had got on with their AS exams. Between August 2008 to October 2008 Ms Dean and Pupil A exchanged further emails and continued conversations in the classroom. 7 In or around October 2008, Ms Dean and Pupil A agreed to meet up and go to the cinema. They exchanged mobile numbers to do so. In December 2008, Pupil A invited Ms Dean to his home whilst his parents were away. Ms Dean and Pupil A had sexual intercourse for the first time. From January 2009 onwards, Pupil A and Ms Dean met up regularly after school and continued a sexual relationship. In March 2009, Pupil A and Ms Dean spent a night together at a hotel in [REDACTED] and went on a day trip to [REDACTED]. Pupil A ended the relationship with Ms Dean in June/July 2009. In October 2009, Pupil A and Ms Dean met up whilst Pupil A was at university and had sexual intercourse. On 17 April 2020, Pupil A contacted the headteacher of the School via LinkedIn and subsequently disclosed his relationship with Ms Dean. A referral was made to the TRA on 27 November 2020, following the School’s investigation. 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: The panel heard evidence from Person A, [REDACTED]. Person A explained that on 17 April 2020, Person B, [REDACTED], contacted her by telephone to inform her that he had received a LinkedIn message from a former pupil, Pupil A. The message did not contain any specific information but stated that it related to a ‘secret’ Pupil A had harboured relating to one of the teachers on the School’s staff list. Pupil A requested that Person B discussed the matter with him further via a phone conversation. Person A explained that Person B asked for her opinion on next steps that should be taken and she suggested that although they did not know what the matter related to specifically it could be something that required their attention and therefore Pupil A should be spoken with. P erson A understood that Person B responded to Pupil A on the same day and agreed to speak with him that afternoon. Person B pointed out, prior to the call, that if Pupil A were to disclose something that had safeguarding implications and/or the potential for a criminal investigation then he was duty bound to report it to the relevant authorities to investigate. Pupil A explained that his time in the [REDACTED] had shaped his values 8 and morals. Pupil A married in 2019 and was thinking about starting a family and in order to be a role model wished to report a ‘secret’ which he felt needed reporting. Person A was aware that Person B and Pupil A spoke the same day, 17 April 2020, by telephone. Pupil A explained that for eight months when he was [REDACTED] he engaged in a consensual relationship with the Teacher. Person A explained that Person B then called her and the [REDACTED] later that day to inform them of the concerns. Person A explained to the panel that because of lockdown the School site was closed and it was not thought appropriate to inform Ms Dean by telephone of the allegations. It was decided to wait to inform her when they could meet in person. Person A explained that on 2 July 2020, a meeting took place with Ms Dean. Ms Dean said that she was shocked by the allegations but was unable to provide any reason why Pupil A would disclose that he had a relationship with her. Ms Dean denied the allegations. Person A explained that she met Ms Dean again on 14 July 2020, and she again denied the allegations. The panel noted Ms Dean maintained her denial of the allegations during the School’s disciplinary process. The panel noted from th