Ms Rebekah Goldson

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Ms Rebekah Goldson

Teacher reference number: 0460637

Teacher's date of birth: 11 January 1983

Location teacher worked: Leicester, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 3 to 5 July 2023

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 Rebekah Goldson, 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 Rebekah Goldson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Rebekah Goldson Teacher ref number: 0460637 Teacher date of birth: 11 January 1983 TRA reference: 19890 Date of determination: 5 July 2023 Former employer: Millgate School, Leicester Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 3 to 5 July 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Rebekah Goldson. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Rachel Kruger (teacher panellist) and Ms Laura Flynn (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Reynolds of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Ms Goldson was present and was represented by Mr George Smith 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 19 April 2023. It was alleged that Ms Goldson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Millgate school she: 1. On or around 29 October 2019, attended school under the influence of alcohol; 2. On or around 17 November 2019, was unable to safeguard and/or care for a child in her care; 3. On 17 November 2019, failed to provide a specimen for analysis, when driving or attempting to drive, contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; 4. On 17 November 2019, failed to stop after an accident, contrary to section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988; 5. On 17 November 2019, resisted and/or obstructed a constable, contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996; 6. She was found guilty of failing to provide a specimen for analysis, when driving or attempting to drive, thereby in relation to her conduct at allegation 3, was conditionally discharged for 24 months and was disqualified from driving for 18 months; 7. She was found guilty of failing to stop after an accident, thereby in relation to her conduct at allegation 4, was conditionally discharged for 24 months; and 8. She was found guilty of resisting or obstructing a constable, thereby in relation to her conduct at allegation 5, was conditionally discharged for 24 months. At the professional conduct panel hearing, Ms Goldson denied allegations 1 and 2 but admitted allegations 3 to 8. Preliminary applications Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private It was suggested at the outset of the hearing by the presenting officer that part of the hearing – [redacted] - should be heard in private. 5 The panel heard submissions from the teacher’s representative who, in the first instance, stated that it was felt there was no requirement for an application for privacy. However, following a discussion with the panel, the presenting officer and Ms Goldson, the teacher’s representative confirmed that Ms Goldson would request that the relevant parts of the hearing should be heard in private. The presenting officer did not have any objection. The panel considered the representations from the presenting officer and the teacher’s representative before reaching its decision. The panel considered that the areas covered in the application legitimately related to aspects of Ms Goldson’s private life and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in public. The panel further noted that the areas covered in the application would protect the interests of [redacted]. 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. 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 6 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 7 to 14 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 15 to 25 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 26 to 312 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A, [redacted] • Witness B, [redacted] Ms Goldson was present and gave oral evidence. No further witnesses were called to provide oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: 6 The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Ms Goldson commenced employment as a teacher at Keyham Lodge school on 26 August 2014. Ms Goldson transferred to Millgate School (‘the School’) on 28 August 2019, where she worked as a primary teacher. In October 2019, Witness A, [redacted], and Person C, [redacted], were approached by Witness B [redacted] and Person D, [redacted]. Witness B and Person D alleged that Ms Goldson smelled of alcohol. Witness A reported that, on the same day, she relayed the concerns to Ms Goldson. Ms Goldson denied drinking alcohol and stated that she’d had a glass of wine the previous night. Witness A reported that she offered Ms Goldson the use of the School’s flat to “sleep it off”, which was declined. On 17 November 2019, the police received a telephone call reporting that Ms Goldson had driven her car whilst under the influence of alcohol, [redacted]. The police received a further call that evening, stating that Ms Goldson had been involved in a road traffic collision with a stationary car and that she allegedly drove away leaving the scene of the accident. Ms Goldson was arrested and later charged. The LADO received a request for a strategy discussion on 18 November 2019. On 5 December 2019, the LADO held a multi-agency strategy meeting. On 12 February 2020, Ms Goldson pleaded guilty to the following offences: 1. Contrary to section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, on 17 November 2019 when suspected of having driven a vehicle and having been required to provide a specimen or specimens of breath for analysis by means of a device of a type approved by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 7 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 in the course of an investigation into whether she had committed an offence under section 3A, 4, 5 or 5A thereof, failed without reasonable excuse to do so; 2. Contrary to section 170(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988, on 17 November 2019 at Leicestershire, being the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle owing to the presence of which on a road, an accident occurred whereby damage was caused to another vehicle, failed to stop; and 3. Contrary to section 89(2) of the Police Act 1996, on 17 November 2019 resisted a constable in the execution of his duty. Ms Goldson received a conditional discharge for 24 months and was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 18 months. 7 On 11 May 2020, Ms Goldson was informed of an investigation by the School and was invited to attend an investigation meeting. The first meeting took place on 19 May 2020 but was adjourned. The School held an investigation meeting on 13 October 2020. Ms Goldson was informed of the outcome of the investigation meeting, on 27 October 2020, confirming that the investigation was complete. The School held a disciplinary hearing on 9 December 2020 to consider allegations made against Ms Goldson. Ms Goldson was informed of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing on 15 December 2020. Witness A submitted a referral to the TRA on 26 February 2021. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On or around 29 October 2019, you attended school under the influence of alcohol; The panel noted the witness statement and oral evidence of Witness A, who submitted that, in October 2019, herself and Person C, [redacted], were approached by two members of staff who wanted to report concerns about Ms Goldson, specifically that she had smelt strongly of alcohol that day. Witness A reported that, on the same day, she spoke to Ms Goldson to relay the concerns. Witness A stated that Ms Goldson said, “I am not drunk” and explained that she had been out with a friend the night before and had a glass of wine. Witness A reported that she felt this was unlikely given that Ms Goldson still smelt of alcohol, and that she offered Ms Goldson the school flat to “sleep it off”, but that Ms Goldson declined. Witness A submitted in her oral evidence that Ms Goldson presented as being under the influence of alcohol as she smelt of alcohol and was defensive when questioned. Witness A confirmed that there were no other indicators that she was under the influence of alcohol. Witness A further confirmed that she observed a lesson of Ms Goldson in the first period of the day, after her discussion with Ms Goldson. During that observation, there were no concerns, with Witness A stating that the observation was “not less than good”. Witness A confirmed that, in her opinion, Ms Goldson was fit to teach. Witness A confirmed that there were no further incidents during that day. The panel noted the witness statement and oral evidence of Witness B. Witness B sub