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:

0248906

Teacher's date of birth:

20 March 1978

Date of professional conduct panel:

4 April 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 Maddalena Reina of Hertfordshire, East of England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on date month year.

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 Maddalena Reina: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 D. Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Maddalena Reina Teacher ref number: 0248906 Teacher date of birth: 20 March 1978 TRA reference: 16686 Date of determination: 4 April 2019 Former employer: [Redacted] A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4 April 2019 at Cheylesmore House, Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Ms Maddalena Reina. The panel members were Ms Mary Speakman (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist) and Mr Mike Carter (former teacher panellist). The legal advisor to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Ms Reina that the allegation be considered without a hearing after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice. Ms Reina provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Reina or her representative. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 21 March 2019. It was alleged that Ms Reina was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst employed as a principal at the [Redacted] ("the School") from January 2016 until July 2017: 1. She demonstrated a lack of professional judgment in relation to Individual A, whom she knew was a convicted child sex offender, on one or more occasions, including; a. On or around 21st February 2017, by allowing Individual A to be present whilst she engaged in a meeting with colleagues discussing work-related matters; b. On or around 4th May 2017, by allowing Individual A onto the School's premises for approximately 9 hours; c. On or around 4th May 2017, by allowing one or more pupils to be in the presence of Individual A; d. On or around 4th May 2017, by failing to put in place a risk assessment and/or any additional measures to ensure the safety of the pupils when Individual A was present on the School's premises; e. On or around 4th May 2017, by allowing Individual A access to her work iPad which provided open access to confidential material; 2. She was dishonest to the police on or around 26th May 2017, in that she told them and/or implied that Individual A had never been to the School, which was untrue. Ms Reina admitted all of the allegations and that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and Anonymised Person List – pages 1 to 3; Section 2: Notice of Referral, Response and Notice of Meeting – pages 4 to 23; 5 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer representations – pages 24 to 30; Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 31 to 148; Section 5: Employment documents – pages 149 to 173; and Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 174 to 183. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Ms Reina on 10 January 2018. D. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Ms Reina that the allegations be considered without a hearing. The panel has 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 consider that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. The panel proceeded to carefully consider the case, having read all the documents, and reached a decision. Ms Reina held the role of principal of [Redacted] ("the School") since January 2016. She was also the designated safeguarding lead of the School. In May 2017, a referral was made by the police to the Waltham Forest Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) regarding a relationship between Ms Reina and Individual A, a convicted sex offender. The relationship had come to light following a proposed holiday Ms Reina and Individual A were intending to take. Individual A was required to notify the police if he wished to leave the country and it was identified that Ms Reina was due to accompany him. Ms Reina was subsequently invited to, and attended, a meeting at Edmonton police station on 26th May 2017, following which the LADO referral was made. Ms Reina was subsequently suspended from her duties at the School and a disciplinary investigation was initiated. Prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary process Ms Reina resigned from her position by letter dated 12th July 2017. The disciplinary process 6 continued notwithstanding her resignation. Ms Reina was subsequently referred to the TRA. In considering the allegations, the panel did not rely upon any findings made or opinions expressed in papers which formed part of the documentation for the investigation undertaken by the School. It formed its own, independent view of the allegations based on the evidence presented to it. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: 1. You demonstrated a lack of professional judgment in relation to Individual A, whom you knew was a convicted child sex offender, on one or more occasions, including; a. On or around 21st February 2017, by allowing Individual A to be present whilst you engaged in a meeting with colleagues discussing work-related matters; b. On or around 4th May 2017, by allowing Individual A onto the School's premises for approximately 9 hours; c. On or around 4th May 2017, by allowing one or more pupils to be in the presence of Individual A; d. On or around 4th May 2017, by failing to put in place a risk assessment and/or any additional measures to ensure the safety of the pupils when Individual A was present on the School's premises; e. On or around 4th May 2017, by allowing Individual A access to your work iPad which provided open access to confidential material; Ms Reina admitted the facts of allegations 1(a) to 1(e). Ms Reina accepts that:  She knew that Individual A was a convicted child sex offender.  In relation to allegation 1(a), Individual A was present on 21st February 2017 when two colleagues were in attendance at her home for a planned off-site senior leadership team (SLT) work day and when work-related matters concerning the School were discussed.  In relation to allegation 1(b), she allowed Individual A to remain on the School's premises for a period of approximately 9 hours on 4th May 2017, which was further evidenced by the School's entry system and CCTV recording. 7  In relation to allegation 1(c), she allowed Individual A to come into contact with Pupil A and one other pupil during the course of 4th May 2017.  In relation to allegation 1(d), she did not implement any risk assessment or any additional measures to ensure the safety of pupils during the time that Individual A was present on the School's premises.  In relation to allegation 1(e), she allowed Individual A access to her work iPad through which he would have been able to access confidential material. The panel considered that this was a clear breach of the School's Code of Conduct Policy and Procedure. Ms Reina also accepted that she demonstrated a lack of professional judgement in relation to Individual A. The panel agreed and concluded that the evidence before it was consistent with Ms Reina's admissions. It therefore found the facts of allegations 1(a) to 1(e) proved. 2. You were dishonest to the police on or around 26th May 2017, in that you told them and/or implied that Individual A had never been to the School, which was untrue. Ms Reina admitted the facts of allegation 2. Ms Reina accepted that, during the course of her meeting with the police on 26th May 2017, she explicitly stated and/or implied that Individual A had never attended the School, despite him having done so on 4th May 2017. Ms Reina further accepted that this conduct was dishonest. The panel considered the actual state of knowledge or belief of Ms Reina as to the facts before considering whether her conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people. In light of her admissions and the supporting evidence, which was clear, the panel was satisfied that Ms Reina was dishonest by those standards. The panel concluded that her actions were deliberate and were intended to mislead. Accordingly, the panel found allegation 2 proved. 8 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations to have been proven, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable