Ms Sarah Mitchell

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 Sarah Mitchell

Teacher reference number: 0160020

Teacher's date of birth: 18 April 1981

Location teacher worked: Hull, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 December 2026

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 Sarah Mitchell formerly employed in Hull, Yorkshire and the Humber.

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 Sarah Mitchell: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 28 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 34 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Sarah Mitchell Teacher ref number: 0160020 Teacher date of birth: 18 April 1981 TRA reference: 21784 Date of determination: 2 December 2025 Former employer: Bude Park Primary School, Hull Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 30 June to 17 July, 4 August, and 2 to 3 December virtually, and also by way of hybrid means where the parties convened both virtually and in person at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Ms Sarah Mitchell [redacted]. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist) and Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Shanie Glen of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Ms Mitchell was present and was represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan of Cornwall Street Barristers, instructed by Thompsons Solicitors. Pursuant to the parties’ agreement, on 4 September 2024, the case of Ms Sarah Mitchell was joined with that of [redacted]. [redacted] was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 10 March 2025. It was alleged that Ms Mitchell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as teacher at Bude Park Primary School (“the School”): 1. In the period between around 19 April 2021 and 21 May 2021, she failed to take any or any adequate action upon becoming aware that Individual A was causing and/or allowing others to complete or amend the attendance records of one or more pupils inaccurately, in that she: a. did not take any action despite being present when Individual A raised concerns on or around 22 April 2021; b. did not take any action despite being present during one or more discussions between Individual A and Individual E when such matters were discussed; c. told Individual D to “just mark [Pupil 31] in”, or words to that effect, when she queried an instruction to do so when Pupil 31 was absent on or around 7 May 2021; d. did not take any action despite being present during a staff meeting when Individual A told staff that certain children who were absent were being marked present. 2. Her conduct as may be found proven at 1 above: a. constituted a failure to adequately safeguard pupils; and/or b. was dishonest, in that she failed to take any, or any adequate action despite knowing that one or more pupil attendance records had been completed or amended in a way which did not accurately reflect the attendance of the relevant pupil(s). Ms Mitchell confirmed at the outset of the hearing that the allegations were denied in full. There was no admission by Ms Mitchell of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, list of key people and anonymised pupil list – pages 15 to 18 Section 2: Notices of proceedings and responses – pages 19 to 35 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 36 to 100 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 101 to 1761 Section 5: Documents provided by [redacted]– pages 1762 to 1765 Section 6: Documents provided by Ms Mitchell – pages 1766 to 1771 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Bundle of Teacher Documents – Ms Mitchell – pages 2 to 32 Bundle of Teacher Documents – [redacted] – pages 2 to 18 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel also had regard to the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession updated May 2020 (“the Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: 1. Person C – [redacted] 2. Witness A – [redacted] 3. Witness B – [redacted] 4. Witness D – [redacted] 5. Witness E – [redacted] 6. Witness - [redacted] 7. Witness G – [redacted] 6 8. Witness H – [redacted] 9. Witness I – [redacted] 10. Witness J – [redacted] The panel also heard oral evidence from Ms Mitchell and [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. In 2002, Ms Mitchell commenced employment at the School as a Teacher. In September 2016, Ms Mitchell was promoted to Assistant Vice Principal at the School. At the same time, commenced his role as Principal at the School. On 15 April 2021, Witness I sent an email to [redacted] noting that the School’s daily attendance was the lowest in the Trust. On 20 May 2021, Individual D, was made aware of concerns that attendance records at the School had been falsified. On 21 May 2021, [redacted] attended a pre-investigation meeting with Person D. [redacted] was asked to take garden leave whilst an investigation was commenced. An investigation was commenced on the same date. On 27 May 2021, Ms Mitchell attended an investigatory interview, as a witness in respect of allegations regarding [redacted] conduct, at the School. On 1 December 2021, [redacted] attended a disciplinary hearing. [redacted] was dismissed from his employment at the School. On 17 March 2022, Ms Mitchell attended an interview at the School, in relation to allegations in respect of her own conduct during the summer term of 2021. Ms Mitchell was subsequently referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 7 1. In the period between around 19 April 2021 and 21 May 2021, you failed to take any or any adequate action upon becoming aware that Person A was causing and/or allowing others to complete or amend the attendance records of one or more pupils inaccurately, in that you: a. did not take any action despite being present when Person C raised concerns on or around 22 April 2021 The panel heard oral evidence from Person C. The panel also had sight of Person C’s witness statement to the TRA dated 4 April 2025, and the notes of Person C’s investigatory interview at the School on 26 May 2021, which had been signed and dated by Person C on 13 June 2021. During her oral testimony, the panel heard from Person C that, on or around 22 April 2021, she became aware from Witness A that [redacted] had instructed her to mark pupils who were absent as present on the attendance register. Person C advised that she was so concerned about this from a safeguarding perspective, that she messaged Witness F privately to seek her guidance. The panel had sight of screenshots of a WhatsApp thread between Person C and Witness F on 21 April 2021. In particular, the panel had sight of the following messages: • A message from Person C to Witness F at 20:43, which stated: “Sorry to bother you on an evening! But if a child/ family where [sic] off school awaiting covid test or test results and you are been [sic] told to mark them as present in school!!!! would this be breaking any rules or regulations? Asking for a friend”; and • A response from Witness F to Person C at 20:56, which stated: “YES!!!! OMG. Seriously, if [redacted] is asking this of you then this is breaking every rule and you should tell him so. If it is for a friend, the same applies. Not only does it break health and safety rules – what if there is a fire and the fire brigade are looking for this child who is marked present but it’s not accounted for on the playground. It also breaks the law on school attendance (I don’t know exactly what law, but school registers are legal documents and falsely marking pupils is a gross breach of that. It sounds extreme but honestly, we have had some cases which have been through the criminal courts [redacted] and it was an honest mistake rather than a complete fraudulent mark but the point is that the register IS a legal document…” • Later on in the thread, there is a message from Person C at 21:18 which stated: “I am going to speak with him again tomorrow!”. • A message from Witness F to Person C at 22:29 which states: “It’s it [sic] just one child/family and if so, why just this one can I ask?” • A message from Person C at 22:36 which states: “No all kids who are ill or isolating! But we have some big familys [sic] so when one goes down, they all do!” 8 • A message from Witness F at 22:41: “Are they doing it retrospectively or on the days they are absent? X” • A message from Person C at 22:46, which states: “So we had about 6 kids who wasn’t [sic] in school but was [sic] marked in as present”. Person C confirmed that these were the WhatsApp messages she had exchanged with Witness F at the time. The panel also heard evidence from Witness F, who separately confirmed that these were the messages she had exchanged with Person C at the time. Person