Ms Sally Stafford

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 Sally Stafford

Teacher reference number: 9860405

Teacher's date of birth: 2 May 1976

Location teacher worked: Nottinghamshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 to 23 November 2021 and 3 to 4 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 Sally Stafford, formerly employed in Nottinghamshire, 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 Sally Stafford: 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 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Sally Stafford Teacher ref number: 9860405 Teacher date of birth: 02 May 1976 TRA reference: 19136 Date of determination: 4 November 2022 Former employer: Dalestorth Primary School ("the School") Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 22 to 23 November 2021, and 3 to 4 November 2022 via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Ms Sally Stafford. The panel members were Mr Chris Ruston (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist) and Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks in November 2021 and Mr Ben Schofield in November 2022, both of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ben Bentley and Ms Sey Shabani in November 2021 and Ms Heather Andersen in November 2022, all of Browne Jacobson LLP. Ms Stafford was not present. She was represented by Mr Andrew Faux, of The Reflective Practice, for an initial application only and thereafter not represented at the hearing. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in th e notice of proceedings dated 8 September 2021: It was alleged that Ms Sally Stafford was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that whilst she was employed at the School: 1. On one or more occasions in or around May 2019 she consumed alcohol at school and/or prior to attending school to the extent that she was inebriated at school and/or during school hours. 2. She failed to attend an organised residential school trip wholly or partly because she had consumed alcohol. 3. On 24th May 2019, she drove home contrary to a management instruction not to do so resulting from concerns that she had consumed excess alcohol. 4. During the 2018/2019 academic year, she gave false and/or misleading information as to her whereabouts: a) stating on or around November 2018 that she had not attended a Writing Moderation course due to it being cancelled when in fact it had not; b) stating on or around 24 May that she had visited another school, when in fact she had been at home consuming alcohol. 5. Her behaviour as may be found proven at: a) 1 above demonstrated a lack of insight into previous advice she had been given by the School in or around April 2019; b) 4a and/or b was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. 6. She had been convicted of drink driving offences including: a) on 9 May 2019, she was arrested for the offence of drink driving and was convicted on 12 March 2020; b) on 3 0 August 2019, she was arrested for the offence of drink driving and was convicted on 11 November 2019 in which she received a 6 -month driving ban, a £969 fine and ordered to pay £300 costs; c) on 11 December 2019, she was arrested for the offence of drink driving and driving whilst dis qualified and was convicted on 13 December 2019 in which she 5 received an 8 -week sentence, suspended for 12 months, and a probation order, which included an alcohol treatment order. 7. She failed to report arrests and/or convictions at allegation 6a and/or b whilst she was still employed by the School. 8. She failed to mention and/or conc ealed allegations 6a, b and/or c at her disciplinary hearing on 6 November 2019 and 13 November 2019. 9. Failed to mention and/or conceal the whole of allegation 6 at her appeal hearing on 7 February 2020 and 10 February 2020. By a signed statement of agreed facts dated 12 February 2022, Ms Stafford accepted that, on one occasion in May 2019, she had consumed alcohol before attending School but denied being inebriated. Ms Stafford denied the facts of allegation 2. Ms Stafford accepted the facts of allegation 3 and 4b (and that in doing the latter, her conduct was dishonest and lacked integrity). She denied allegation 4a (and therefore 5b in respect of that particular). Ms Stafford admitted allegations 6 to 9. In respect of the admitted allegations, Ms Stafford accepted tha t these amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and where applicable, convictions of relevant offences. Preliminary applications Application to discontinue The panel first heard an application from Mr Faux, who stated that it was not proportionate for the hearing to continue and that it should be discontinued or , alternatively, stayed indefinitely. The basis of this application was contained within the written submissions dated 23 October 2021. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Mr Faux's fundamental position was that it was unfair for the state to pursue proceedings against Ms Stafford. He stated that it had already done what it needed to fulfil the public interest and to continue the case would be '…drive the tractor over Ms Stafford and then to reverse back over her'. [REDACTED] 6 The panel was aided by Mr Faux's written submissions, specifically paragraph 6, which set out the approach to be taken when considering whether the state had acted lawfully (taken from Bank Mellat v HM Treasury [2013] UKSC 39) and, of pertinence to this case, how that approach was applied to Ms Stafford's case. The panel was grateful to Mr Faux for bringing the change in TRA's policy to its attention, which it had not previously been aware of, in either carnation. However, the panel did not consider a TRA hearing to be the appropriate forum for consideration to be given to whether the change in policy, in and of itself, was lawful. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The remaining arguments put forward by Mr Faux carried sign ificantly less persuasive weight. No authority was provided to support his submissions in paragraph 7b. The panel did not accept that, as there had been previously published decisions on misconduct similar to that alleged against Ms Stafford, the TRA's public interest limbs, in respect of declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct, and maintaining public confidence in the profession, had been met. No proper reason had been put forward by Mr Faux for such a position that would mean, in effect, the TRA should not pursue any case when the protection of children was not a factor. Without there being published decision on declaring and upholding proper standards and maintaining public confidence in the profession , whilst both of these public interests would diminish in strength, their importance would not do so. In the panel's view, it is only because there were ongoing reminders, from published decisions, that the public's confidence in the profession could, and did, remain and, on the whole, proper standards in the profession were maintained. [REDACTED] The panel assumed, it not having bee n expanded upon orally, that the stated "…interference with [Ms Stafford's] rights…" was a reference to her Article 8 rights. In the panel's view, other than an assertion made in written application, it had not received any argument to substantiate this point. Taking all of the above points, the panel determined to not allow the application and that the hearing should proceed. Application to proceed in the absence of Ms Stafford The panel considered an application from Ms Shabani to proceed in the absence of Ms Stafford. 7 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, particularly GMC v Adeogba; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Ms Stafford was clearly aware of the hearing and had responded to the Notice, confirming that she will not be attending because [REDACTED], most of which she had admitted. Mr Faux, during his application to discontinue, also confirmed that Ms Stafford would not be attending the hearing and that she was content for the hearing to proceed in her absence. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Ms Stafford's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overal l fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Ms Stafford was not in attendance and would not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to her as a consequence. Given the express confirmation from Ms Stafford that she was not going to attend and consented to the hearing proceeding in her absence, the panel concluded that the hearing should proceed. The panel was satisfied that Ms Stafford's absence was voluntary and she had waived her right to attend. There was no indication that Ms Stafford might attend at a future date. No purpose would be served by an adjournment. The panel also took account of the fact that there is a public interest in hearings taking