Ms Sharon Flowers

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 Sharon Flowers

Location teacher worked: Luton, East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 to 15 November 2024

Outcome type: no order made

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 Sharon Flowers, formerly employed in Luton, East England.

Ms Sharon Flowers: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Sharon Flowers TRA reference: 19948 Date of determination: 15 November 2024 Former employer: Bramingham Primary School, Luton Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 13 to 15 November 2024, by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Sharon Flowers. The panel members were Mr Francis Murphy (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Jayne Bamford (lay panellist) and Ms Olivia Kong (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks LLP. Ms Flowers was not 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 7 August 2024. It was alleged that Ms Flowers was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. She failed to ensure that the School’s recruitment policies and procedures and/or statutory guidance were followed in that: a. In or around February 2019 when recruiting staff member Person A, she failed to ensure: i. The post was advertised; ii. That two references were undertaken; b. In or around January 2014 and/or May 2014 and/or January 2015 when recruiting staff member Person B she failed to ensure: i. A formal interview was held; ii. New pre-employment checks, including references and DBS checks were undertaken; c. In or around July 2015 when recruiting staff member Person C she failed to ensure: i. An application form was completed; ii. A formal interview was held; 2. In or around January 2018, she sought to increase Person C’s salary to that of or similar to a level 6 role, notwithstanding that Person C’s role had been assessed as being a level 5 role, by: a. Paying Person C for two additional weeks worked, but not requiring her to work this time; b. Giving Person C a paid week off during term time . 5 Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Ms Flowers The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Ms Flowers. 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 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Although not present at this hearing, there were numerous communications between and Ms Flowers and the TRA about the allegations and the proceedings generally. Ms Flowers has to a significant degree engaged in the preparations for this hearing. The panel noted that in correspondence with the TRA on 9 July 2024, Ms Flowers had stated: “I would really want to be able to attend the hearing, to defend myself, ask questions that I know have not been asked… I am really sorry that I cannot attend. I must [REDACTED].” On the 7 August 2024 following the Notice being sent to Ms Flowers, she replied confirming receipt. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Ms Flowers was fully aware of these proceedings in general terms, confirmed receipt of the Notice and expressed a clear position on her intention not to attend this hearing (albeit that was sent prior to the Notice). The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Ms Flowers’ absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 5.47 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 overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Ms Flowers is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to her as a consequence. 6 On balance, t he panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Ms Flowers for the following reasons: • Ms Flowers had not sought an adjournment of this hearing. • Whilst Ms Flowers indicated that her [REDACTED] impacted on her ability to participate in this hearing, there was no medical evidence before the panel which indicated that she was [REDACTED] or provide steps in which this hearing could be adapted to accommodate [REDACTED]. • The panel was satisfied that Ms Flowers’ absence was voluntary and she had waived her right to attend. • The risk of reaching the wrong conclusion and the disadvantage to Ms Flowers in not being present were somewhat mitigated by the fact that Ms Flowers had extensively engaged with the TRA and provided a detailed account of her position. • Given Ms Flowers’ non-attendance, there was no indication that Ms Flowers might attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. • There is a burden on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. • There are witnesses present to give evidence to the panel who would be significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Ms Flowers is neither present nor represented. Application to admit late evidence At the start and during the course of the hearing, the presenting officer made applications to admit responses that Ms Flowers had sent to the TRA which further set out her position on the case. The presenting officer highlighted that they could be considered relevant to the case, as they touched on the teacher’s position on the allegations and that it would be fair to admit them as the teacher was not present at the hearing and it would mean the panel had a fuller understanding as to Ms Flowers’ position on the case. These documents were:  an 8 page response dated August 2021;  an email sent on 13 November 2024 at 10:02; 7  an email sent on 14 November 2024 at 04:34. On each occasion, the panel agreed with the presenting officer’s submissions in regard to the relevance and fairness of the documents and they were admitted into the evidence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 45 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 46 to 73 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 74 to 1212 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 1213 to 1303 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the documents as set out above in the preliminary applications section. 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 had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA:  Witness D [REDACTED];  Witness E [REDACTED]. No witnesses were called on behalf of the teacher. 8 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 Flowers was the Headteacher at Bramingham Primary School in Luton (“the School”), having been appointed to that position in 2001. Ms Flowers had worked at the School since it opened in 1993. The School is a local authority maintained primary school with around 400 pupils on roll. As a result of a local authority audit, there was a concern about the School’s approach to safer recruitment practices and a fuller investigation was undertaken by the local authority. Ms Flowers’ employment with the School ended on 31 December 2020, prior to any disciplinary proceedings being completed. However, following those processes, the local authority made a referral to the TRA which resulted in this hearing. The panel heard from Witness D, who at the time was a [REDACTED] and long standing member of staff at the School. The panel also heard from Ms Witness E, who undertook the main investigation by the local authority. In her evidence, Witness E explained the investigation process she undertook which included interviewing a number of staff members (including Ms Flowers) and inspecting the School’s records. Although not present at this hearing, Ms Flowers had engaged with the TRA to a significant degree in providing written evidence about her account. In essence, Ms Flowers appeared to accept much of the allegations against her. The panel has not drawn any adverse inference from M