Ms Liyarna Beamish

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 Liyarna Beamish

Teacher reference number: 1058364

Teacher's date of birth: 19 February 1986

Location teacher worked: Gloucester, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 July 2025

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 Liyarna Beamish, formerly employed in Gloucester, South West 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 Liyarna Beamish: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Liyarna Beamish Teacher ref number: 1058364 Teacher date of birth: 19 February 1986 TRA reference: 24146 Date of determination: 10 July 2025 Former employer: Ribston Hall High School, Gloucester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 July 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Ms Liyarna Beamish. The panel members were Ms Laura Mullin (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist) and Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish of Birketts LLP Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Ms Beamish that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Ms Beamish provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel therefore considered the case at a meeting, without the attendance of the presenting officer; Mr Cyale Bennett of Browne Jacobson LLP, Ms Beamish or any representative for Ms Beamish. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 7 April 2025. It was alleged that Ms Beamish was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. She engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour with Colleague A by; a) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague A on the school premises; b) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague A during school hours; c) Using her mobile phone to send messages of an explicit nature to Colleague A during school hours. 2. Her conduct at allegation 1 was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated. Ms Beamish admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2, as set out in the statement of agreed facts, signed by Ms Beamish on 26 January 2025. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 5 Section 2: Notice of referral and notice of meeting – pages 6 to 16a Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 17 to 23 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 24 to 120 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 121 to 133 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Ms Beamish on 26 January 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Ms Beamish for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing, if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Ms Beamish was employed as a teacher at Ribston Hall High School (‘the School’) from 1 September 2016 until 15 July 2024. On 26 June 2024, the School was contacted by a third-party regarding Ms Beamish and Colleague A engaging in sexual intercourse on the School’s premises. Screenshots were taken of the messages between Ms Beamish and Colleague A. After initially denying it, Ms Beamish admitted, at investigation stage, that she had engaged in sexual intercourse and other sexual activities with Colleague A on the School premises during School hours and that she had sent and received messages on her phone during School hours that were of an explicit sexual nature. The matter was referred to the TRA on 19 July 2024. 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. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour with Colleague A by; a) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague A on the school premises; 6 b) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague A during school hours; c) Using your mobile phone to send messages of an explicit nature to Colleague A during school hours. The panel noted that Ms Beamish admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) and again considered the statement of agreed facts. The panel considered the screenshots of the WhatsApp messages between Ms Beamish and Colleague A. The panel noted, in particular and without limitation, these messages which related to the allegations: [REDACTED] The panel noted and carefully scrutinised the notes of the investigatory meeting of the School of 8 July 2024. The panel also carefully considered the written statements of Ms Beamish as prepared for the disciplinary process and for this hearing. The panel noted that all of these documents contained hearsay evidence but considered, in each case, that it was in the interests of justice to admit them and considered they were relevant, though it carefully considered the appropriate amount of weight to be placed upon each document. The panel noted that in the investigatory meeting in response to the questions: • “Did you engage in sexual activity and sexual intercourse in school with a member of staff?” Ms Beamish responded “Yes” • “Can you confirm the name of the other staff member who engaged in sexual activity and sexual intercourse with you? Ms Beamish responded “Yes” stating the name of Colleague A. • “Over what period of time and on how many occasions did this happen in school? Ms Beamish responded “Couple of Years – multiple occasions” • “Where did this activity take place in school? Was it in your classroom?” Ms Beamish responded “Art room, and two art cupboards, both doors locked, downstairs door locked as well” • “When did this take place in school – before school, after school, during the school day?” Ms Beamish responded “During the school day and after school” 7 Also, when confronted with copies of the messages of which the panel have since had sight of, the panel noted that, in that meeting, in response to the questions: • “Did you send/receive these messages?” Ms Beamish responded “Yes” • “Who did you send the messages to?” Ms Beamish responded with the name of Colleague A. • “Who did you receive the messages in these photos from?” Ms Beamish responded with the name of Colleague A. • “Are the arrangements detailed in the messages a representation of liaisons that took place in school?” Ms Beamish responded “Yes”. The panel noted that, within her written submissions to the School, Ms Beamish expressly admitted that she had engaged in sexual activities and sexual intercourse on the School premises during working hours with a member of teaching staff. She also expressly admitted that she used her mobile phone during School hours to send and receive messages of an explicit sexual nature. The panel also noted that Ms Beamish was clear in that investigatory meeting that no- one had seen them engage in these activities and that they occurred in locations with locked doors. The panel considered that these actions within the allegations were inappropriate and unprofessional. The panel found allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) proven. 2. Your conduct at allegation 1 was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated. The panel noted that Ms Beamish admitted allegation 2 and again considered the statement of agreed facts. The panel’s attention was drawn to Section 78 Sexual Offences Act 2003 and to the cases of Sait v The General Medical Council [2018], Basson v General Medical Council [2018] and The General Medical Council v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518. The panel considered whether the conduct was sexually motivated. It noted that in Basson it was stated that, “A sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship”. The panel was also mindful of the Court of Appeal’s conclusion in General Medical Council v Haris [2021] EWCA Civ 763. The court found in that case that, “In the absence of a plausible innocent explanation for what he did, the facts spoke for themselves.” 8 The panel found that, on the evidence, Ms Beamish had clearly pursued a sexual relationship with Colleague A and that there was sufficient evidence to prove that her conduct was sexually motivated. The panel felt that Ms Beamish was seeking sexual gratification from her conduct with Colleague A and had engaged in sexual intercourse with him on the School’s premises. The panel therefore considered that Ms Beamish’s conduct was sexually motivated. The panel felt that the conduct of Ms Beamish was inherently sexual in nature, in that she engaged in sexual intercourse and other sexual activities on the School’s premises during school hours and exchanged m