Ms Michela Hall

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 Michela Hall

Teacher reference number: 3762838

Teacher's date of birth: 26 October 1980

Location teacher worked: Burnley, north west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 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 Michela Hall, formerly employed in insert Burnley, north 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 Michela Hall: 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 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 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 Michela Hall Teacher ref number: 3762838 Teacher date of birth: 26 October 1980 TRA reference: 19569 Date of determination: 10 November 2022 Former employer: Lincoln House School, Burnley Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 November 2022 remotely via Microsoft Teams to consider the case of Ms Hall. The panel members were Mr Clive Ruddle (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Gemma Hutchinson (teacher panellist) and Mrs Kathleen O'Hare (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael O'Donohoe of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Ms Hall was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 30 August 2022. It was alleged that Ms Hall was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. On or about 3 July 2019 she behaved in an inappropriate manner whilst on School premises in that she attended the School; a. despite not being on duty; b. in possession of alcohol; c. and consumed alcohol on school premises; d. whilst intoxicated; e. and, notwithstanding 1(a)-(d) above as may be found proven or in any event: i. sought out and/or made contact with Pupil A and/or Pupil B; ii. were alone with Pupil A iii. locked herself in a room with Pupil A on one or more occasions iv. grabbed or held onto Pupil A’s bicycle while alone with Pupil A v. pulled at Pupil A’s clothing; vi. removed Pupil A’s jumper and/or jacket from his person; vii. wore one or more items of Pupil A’s clothing viii. pulled Pupil A’s arm or arms in an attempt to remove him from the room she was in; f. and refused to leave when asked to do so. 2. Her conduct towards Pupil A as may be found proven at Allegation 1(e)(i)-(viii) was notwithstanding concerns and/or management advice regarding maintaining appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A. Ms Hall did not respond to the Notice. The case therefore proceeded as a disputed case. 5 Preliminary applications The panel first considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Ms Hall. 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 including GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Ms Hall's absence. The panel determined that it should proceed in the absence of Ms Hall for the following reasons: • Ms Hall had not sought an adjournment. • The panel had not been provided with any medical evidence which indicated that Ms Hall was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-health. • The panel was satisfied that given Ms Hall has disengaged with the TRA, her absence was voluntary, and she had waived her right to attend. • There was no indication that Ms Hall might attend at a future date and an adjournment would be unlikely to result in her attendance at a later date. • The panel was conscious that witnesses had made arrangements and were ready to attend the hearing to provide their oral evidence. • There is a strong public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable timeframe. Next, the panel considered an application from the presenting officer to make some amendments to the allegation, as follows (proposed amendments underlined): 1. On or about 3 July 2019 you behaved in an inappropriate manner whilst on School premises in that you attended the School; e. and, notwithstanding 1(a)-(d) above as may be found proven or in any event: vi. removed Pupil A’s jumper and/or jacket from his person; The TRA submitted that the amendment to the stem of allegation 1 was essentially a "tidying-up" exercise and would not change the nature of the TRA's case against Ms Hall. In relation to sub-particular 1e (vi.), it was submitted that this proposed amendment reflected the witness evidence, and the amendment would not change the nature of the case against Ms Hall, as it was alleged that it was an item of clothing that Ms Hall removed from Pupil A. 6 The panel carefully considered the application and in doing so, it accepted the legal advice. This application was made pursuant to Rule 5.83 which provides that, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts have been proved, the panel may, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation. The panel accepted the presenting officer's submissions that the amendments did not alter the nature of the case. The panel determined that the amendments did not alter the substance of the case or result in new factual particulars being alleged. The panel did not consider that the amendments would cause any prejudice to Ms Hall. The panel decided to accept the TRA's application. In light of the panel's decision, the allegation now reads as follows: 1. On or about 3 July 2019 you behaved in an inappropriate manner whilst on School premises in that you attended the School; a. despite not being on duty; b. in possession of alcohol; c. and consumed alcohol on school premises; d. whilst intoxicated; e. and, notwithstanding 1(a)-(d) above as may be found proven or in any event: i. sought out and/or made contact with Pupil A and/or Pupil B; ii. were alone with Pupil A iii. locked yourself in a room with Pupil A on one or more occasions iv. grabbed or held onto Pupil A’s bicycle while alone with Pupil A v. pulled at Pupil A’s clothing; vi. removed Pupil A’s jumper and/or jacket from his person; vii. wore one or more items of Pupil A’s clothing viii. pulled Pupil A’s arm or arms in an attempt to remove him from the room you were in; f. and refused to leave when asked to do so. 7 2. Your conduct towards Pupil A as may be found proven at Allegation 1(e)(i)-(viii) was notwithstanding concerns and/or management advice regarding maintaining appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 4 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and Response – pages 6 to 17 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 19 to 49 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 51 to 126 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 128 to 129 The panel was also provided with a separate bundle of papers in support of the TRA's application to proceed in the absence of Ms Hall, consisting of 17 pages. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following TRA witnesses: 1. Witness A, [REDACTED] 2. Witness B, [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 Hall had been employed at Lincoln House School ("the School") from 1 May 2019 to 10 September 2019 as a teacher (Lead Tutor). On 3 July 2019, alleged misconduct occurred on the School premises. It is alleged that Ms Hall behaved inappropriately whilst intoxicated on the School premises outside of her working hours. 8 Prior to this incident, there were concerns regarding professional boundaries between Ms Hall and Pupil A. It is alleged that Ms Hall had ignored those concerns, which had been raised with her. Ms Hall was dismissed from her position at the School following an internal investigation. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A and Witness B. The panel found their evidence clear, consistent and credible. The panel took into account that the School formed part of Lincoln House, which was a care home for children who had been victims and perpetrators of sexual offences. The two witnesses called by the TRA provided further information regarding the layout of the premises. In particular, Witness A explained that the School was on the same grounds as the home, and it took no more than 10 seconds to walk between the two. During her oral evidence, Witness B stated that she could hear when the pupils were "kicking off" when in the School building. The panel found that the alleged conduct occurred both in the School building, just outside of the School building and in the home, which the panel accepted was on the same premises as the School. On balance, the panel was satisfied that the alleged conduct took place on School premises. The panel noted that during the School's investigation, Ms Hall did not deny her conduct, and stated it was "one stupid mistake". Ms Hall also said that she regretted her actions. 1. On or about 3 Jul