Ms Laura Colledge

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 Laura Colledge

Location teacher worked: Cirencester, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 February 2025 to 14 February 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Laura Colledge, formerly employed in Cirencester, South West England.

Ms Laura Colledge: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 Contents 2 Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Laura Colledge TRA reference: 22895 Date of determination: 14 February 2025 Former employer: Cirencester Kingshill School, Gloucestershire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 13 to 14 February 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Laura Colledge. The panel members were Mr Ian McKim (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Antonia Jackson (teacher panellist) and Mr John Martin (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Oluwunmi of Three Raymond Buildings, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Ms Colledge was present and was represented by Ms Sarah Valentine, Regional Officer of NASUWT. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public (save for parts which were heard in private) and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 November 2024. It was alleged that Ms Colledge was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Cirencester Kingshill School she: 1. On 27 June 2022 whilst on a residential trip with pupils of Cirencester Kingshill School she: a. Brought alcohol with her b. Consumed this on site c. Was incapable of carrying out her duties either solely or in part as a result of alcohol consumption. Ms Colledge admitted allegation 1(a). Ms Colledge denied allegations 1(b) and 1(c) and further denied that any of the allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from the teacher’s representative that part of the hearing relating to the teacher’s health should be heard in private. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. The presenting officer did not have an objection to the application. 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 Colledge’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. 5 Application to admit an additional document The panel considered a preliminary application from the teacher’s representative for the admission of an additional document. The document was a witness statement from Witness C, a teacher at the School. The teacher’s representative explained that Witness C would attend the hearing to give oral evidence. Witness C witness statement 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 it should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the teacher’s representative and the presenting officer. The presenting officer did not object to the application. The panel considered that Witness C witness statement was relevant to the issues it had to determine, particularly as she would be giving oral evidence during the course of the hearing. Accordingly, the document was added to the bundle. Application to amend allegation 1(c) During the course of the first day of the hearing, the presenting officer made an application to amend allegation 1(c) from: “Were incapable of carrying out your duties as a result of alcohol consumption” to “Were incapable of carrying out your duties either solely or in part as a result of alcohol consumption.” The teacher’s representative objected to the application on the basis that the proposed amendment would change the nature and substance of allegation 1(c). However, she was unable to comment on whether, had the allegation been amended prior to the hearing, it would have altered the preparation or presentation of Ms Colledge’s case, save to confirm that she had taken instructions based on the original allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. 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]. The panel acknowledged that the proposed amendment changed the nature and scope of allegation 1(c) to an extent. However, it did not consider that the proposed amendment would cause unfairness or prejudice to Ms Colledge, nor did it consider that her case would be presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage in the proceedings. 6 The panel granted the application, although it remained alive to the need to assess the causative factors which may or may not have led to the position Ms Colledge found herself in on 27 June 2022. The panel considered the amended allegation, which is set out in this decision document. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 31 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 32 to 45 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 46 to 233 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 234 to 282. In addition, the panel agreed to admit the witness statement of Witness C. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and had the opportunity to read the additional document before Witness C gave evidence. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A, [REDACTED] at Cirencester Kingshill School. • Witness B, [REDACTED] The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called on behalf of the teacher: • Ms Colledge. • Witness C, a [REDACTED] at Cirencester Kingshill School. 7 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 Colledge was employed by Cirencester Kingshill School (‘the School’) as an English teacher between 1 September 2017 and 15 May 2023. She was also part of the pastoral team and a head of year (for year 7). From 27 June 2022 to 1 July 2022 the School held its annual residential trip for year 7 pupils, which took place at Whitemoor Lakes Centre (‘the Centre’). The trip was attended by around 130 to 140 pupils, who were split into two groups. One group attended from 27 to 29 June 2022 and the other group attended from 29 June to 1 July 2022. During the trip, pupils attended planned activities throughout the day, which were organised by the Centre and had meals provided to them by the Centre. The pupils also stayed overnight at the centre and staff members of the School were solely responsible for the pupils overnight. Ms Colledge was responsible for arranging the trip and was the ‘trip lead’. She was therefore expected to be present for the whole week and was given a bedroom of her own, which had an en-suite bathroom. It was alleged that Ms Colledge brought alcohol with her and consumed it at the Centre during the trip. It was further alleged that Ms Colledge was incapable of carrying out her duties either solely or in part as a result of her consumption of alcohol. The School investigated this matter under its disciplinary procedure and subsequently made referrals to the Disclosure and Barring Service (on 20 November 2023) and to the TRA (on 13 December 2023). 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: 1. On 27 June 2022 whilst on a residential trip with pupils of Cirencester Kingshill School you: a. Brought alcohol with you b. Consumed this on site 8 c. Were incapable of carrying out your duties either solely or in part as a result of alcohol consumption. Ms Colledge admitted allegation 1(a) and denied allegations 1(b) and 1(c) and provided oral and written evidence. The panel considered the written and oral evidence of the following witnesses, all of whom were present at the residential trip on 27 June 2022: • Witness A, [REDACTED] at the School (and [REDACTED] at the time the allegations took place). • Witness B, [REDACTED] at the Centre and the first aider on duty on 27 June 2022. • Witness C, [REDACTED] at the School. The factual evidence given by the witnesses as to the events that too