Ms Natalie Arcos-Diaz

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 Natalie Arcos-Diaz

Teacher reference number: 0644520

Teacher's date of birth: 3 April 1985

Location teacher worked: Leicester, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 to 13 December 2024

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 Natalie Arcos-Diaz, formerly employed in Leicester, East Midlands.

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 Natalie Arcos-Diaz: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 25 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 29 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Natalie Arcos-Diaz Teacher ref number: 0644520 Teacher date of birth: 03 April 1985 TRA reference: 19380 Date of determination: 13 December 2024 Former employer: Eastfield Primary School, Leicester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 to 13 December 2024, by virtual means, to consider the case of Ms Natalie Arcos-Diaz. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist) and Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Ms Arcos-Diaz was not in attendance and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save for sections relating to personal matters that were heard in private. The hearing was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 4 September 2024. It was alleged that Ms Arcos-Diaz had been convicted of a relevant offence in that on or around 30 November 2018 she was convicted of: 1. Driving a motor vehicle with excess alcohol on 10 November 2018, contrary to the Road Traffic Act 1988 s5(1)(a). It was also alleged that Ms Arcos-Diaz was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst a teacher at Eastfield Primary School she: 2. Did not declare to the Trust the conviction, outlined in Allegation 1 when completing an application form for the role of head teacher for Eastfield Primary School which was received by the Trust on 10 February 2020. 3. Attended Eastfield Primary School unfit for work due to alcohol and/or medication, on one or more occasions, including on: a. 2 September 2019; and/or b. 6 September 2019; and/or c. 26 September 2019; and/or d. 4 February 2020; and/or e. 10 February 2020; and/or f. 14 February 2020. 4. In or around May 2020, she inappropriately: a. Shared the Trust’s confidential investigation report and/or information form it with former Colleague A; and/or b. Made contact with staff members via text and/or social medial. 5. Her conduct as set out at paragraph 2: a. was dishonest; and/or b. lacked integrity. In the response to the notice of proceedings, Ms Arcos-Diaz’s representative indicated that Ms Arcos-Diaz admitted the facts of allegation 1, but that the remainder of the allegations were denied. Given her non-attendance at the hearing, the panel proceeded on the basis that Ms Arcos-Diaz did not admit the allegations, and nor did she admit having been convicted of a relevant offence, that she was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Admission of late documents Ms Arcos-Diaz provided a witness statement for the panel’s consideration, after the date documents relied upon by her were due pursuant to paragraph 5.37 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the “Procedures”). The panel decided to exercise its discretion to admit the document. There was no objection by the presenting officer to its admission. The panel considered that the document was clearly relevant as it was Ms Arcos-Diaz’s response to the allegations. The panel also considered it fair to admit the document so that the panel would be appraised of Ms Arcos-Diaz’s defence, particularly in circumstances where Ms Arcos- Diaz was absent from the hearing. Proceeding in absence The presenting officer applied to proceed in the absence of Ms Arcos-Diaz. The panel was informed that the notice of proceedings had been sent to Ms Arcos-Diaz by email. The panel therefore asked that enquiries be made as to whether Ms Arcos- Diaz’s representative had requested that the notice be sent by email, since this was a requirement for effective service under the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). The panel received confirmation from Ms Arcos-Diaz’s representative that they had advised previously that all communication with her representative was to be by email. The panel was therefore satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements set out in the Regulations. The panel was also satisfied that the notice of proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Procedures. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional was of prime importance but that it also encompassed the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive her right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones. 6 The panel considered that Ms Arcos-Diaz was aware of the proceedings, since her representative responded with her response to the notice of proceedings, and a late witness statement by Ms Arcos-Diaz was provided. The statement set out that Ms Arcos- Diaz apologised for not having attended the hearing in person and for the late submission of her statement. She stated that the “whole ordeal of [her] suspension, the investigation and [her] dismissal [had] had a profound effect on [her] [REDACTED]….[She] would have liked to have attended the hearing but [she] feel[s] that the risk of the [REDACTED].” In light of the indication of [REDACTED], the panel asked that enquires be made as to whether Ms Arcos-Diaz was aware that she could apply for the hearing to be postponed on [REDACTED], or otherwise. Her representative confirmed that she was aware of this but confirmed that no such application was to be made, as further delay would be counter-productive to Ms Arcos-Diaz’s [REDACTED]. The panel therefore considered that the teacher has waived her right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. Given the above response from Ms Arcos-Diaz’s representative the panel did not consider it likely that Ms Arcos-Diaz would attend if the hearing was adjourned. The response to the notice of proceedings indicated that Ms Arcos-Diaz would not be in attendance, but that her representative would. However, this was clarified by her representative on 3 December 2024 in an email which stated that since Ms Arcos-Diaz would not be attending, her representative would also not be attending the hearing. The panel had the benefit of a statement made by the teacher and was able to ascertain the lines of defence. It also referred to her points in mitigation and the panel was able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel noted that four witnesses relied upon were to be called to give evidence and the panel could test their evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as were favourable to the teacher, as were reasonably available on the evidence. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel also recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged is said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at the Eastfield Primary (“the School”). The School will have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. 7 The panel also noted that there were four witnesses who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and potentially distressing for this to have to be re-arranged to a future hearing slot. Delaying the case may impact upon the memories of those witnesses, or lead them to disengage from the proceedings. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that Ms Arcos-Diaz had waived her right to appear, and that an adjournment would not secure her attendance, nor would it be in her interests. By taking such measures referred to above to address any unfairness insofar as was possible, the panel considered that the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing, particularly given that the witnesses were available to be questioned, and delay could impact on the quality of evidence