Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

3449458

Teacher's date of birth:

14 July 1984

Location teacher worked:

Hertfordshire, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel:

6 to 8 February 2017

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 Siobhan McHugh, Hertfordshire, East of England.

The proceedings were held at Study Inn Conference Centre, 175 Corporation Street, Coventry, CV1 1GU at 9.30am on 6 to 8 February 2017.

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 Siobhan McHugh Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2017 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 E. Decision and reasons 6 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 Siobhan McHugh Teacher ref number: 3449458 Teacher date of birth: 14 July 1984 NCTL case reference: 15361 Date of determination: 7 February 2017 Former employer: Haileybury College A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 6 to 7 February 2017 at the Study Inn Conference Centre, 175 Corporation Street, Coventry, CV1 1GU, to consider the case of Ms Siobhan McHugh. The panel members were Mr Tony Woodward (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Kathy Thomson (teacher panellist) and Ms Hilary Jones (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Tom Walker of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Ms Alexandra Tampakopoulous, counsel, instructed by Nabarro LLP. Ms Siobhan McHugh was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 6 December 2016. It was alleged that Ms McHugh was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that she: 1. On one or more occasions said, wrote or implied she had a medical degree when she did not to: a. Pupil(s) b. Colleague(s) c. Parent(s) 2. Failed to maintain professional boundaries in that: a. On or prior to 9 November 2015 invited pupil(s) and/or allowed pupil(s) to attend her accommodation at the School; b. Attended a member of staff's accommodation with a pupil; c. Spent inappropriate lengths of time with pupil(s) 3. Her actions at 2.c. above continued after she had received warning(s) and/or advice from colleague(s) 4. On one or more occasions disclosed confidential information about a pupil; 5. Her conduct set out above at 1 was dishonest in that she knew she was making representations(s) which were not true. Ms McHugh responded to the Notice of Proceedings and denied the allegations. The panel noted that Ms McHugh engaged in subsequent correspondence with the NCTL in which partial admissions were made. However, the panel proceeded on the basis that the allegations in the case had not been admitted. C. Preliminary applications The presenting officer applied to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Ms McHugh. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer, and receiving legal advice, the panel announced the decision as follows: The panel is satisfied that the Notice has been served in accordance with Rule 4.11. 5 The panel is satisfied that Ms McHugh is aware of the proceedings and has voluntarily absented herself from the hearing. Ms McHugh has responded to the Notice by way of a signed form dated 8 January 2017 (page 11 of the Bundle) and has confirmed that she does not wish to attend the hearing. The panel has had regard to the public interest in these proceedings taking place reasonably promptly and is satisfied that there is no useful purpose in not proceeding today. In accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.27 to 4.29 the panel has decided to proceed in the absence of Ms McHugh. D. 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 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 11 Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 13 to 32 Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 34 to 78 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 80 to 86 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. In the course of the hearing, the NCTL made applications to put the following documents before the panel: Statement of Individual A (pages 87 to 88) disclosed by the NCTL as unused material. Staff handbook extract pages 89 to 92. The panel received legal advice in relation to the admission of such documents and accepted that advice. The panel was satisfied that the documents were re levant to the case and that Ms McHugh had had sight of such documents. The panel was thus satisfied that it was fair to admit the documents in accordance with Rules 4.18 and 4.19. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: 1. Witness A (House Mistress) 6 2. Witness B (Deputy Master) 3. Witness C (Head of English) 4. Witness D (Head of Biology) 5. Witness E (English Teacher) The panel received a signed statement from Individual A, but he did not attend to give oral evidence. Ms McHugh did not attend the hearing but set out her response to the allegations in a detailed statement which was before the panel. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before us and has reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. This case relates to Ms McHugh who started employment at the Haileybury College ("the school") on or around 1 September 2015 as a Biology teacher. The school offered boarding facilities, and Ms McHugh was expected to undertake a range of pastoral duties with pupils, and indeed lived in school accommodation near the main school site. In the course of her employment, a number of concerns were reported about representations Ms McHugh had made about her educational qualifications (Allegations 1 and 5). Other concerns were reported which related to her relationships and interactions with pupils, to include specific concerns about the way in which she interacted with specific pupils (Allegations 2 and 3) and managed information in relation to such pupils (Allegation 4). Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proven, for these reasons: 1. On one or more occasions said, wrote or implied you had a medical degree when you did not to: a. Pupil(s) b. Colleague(s) 7 c. Parent(s) The panel commenced its deliberations by assessing the chronology of the evidence put before it by the NCTL. Ms McHugh set out her qualifications when she made an application to the school (pages 49 to 56 of the Bundle).There is no reference to Ms McHugh having completed a medical degree. Ms McHugh also accepts in her statement that she had not completed a medical degree (page 83 of the Bundle). The panel is satisfied that Ms McHugh had not in fact completed such a degree. The panel had sight of an email from Individual B who stated that Ms McHugh informed her that she had completed medical training during her medical examination in June 2015 (page 65 of the Bundle). Although Individual B did not give oral evidence in these proceedings, the panel is satisfied that this representation was made to Individual B as described. Ms McHugh wrote a letter addressed and sent to parents dated 4 September 2015 in which she described herself as, "having completed a medical degree" (page 66 of the Bundle). This communication is of relevance to each of the particulars on the basis that it provided information to parents, who in turn would be likely to pass such information on to their children. Similarly, this communication was also available to the colleagues of Ms McHugh and indeed was copied in to Witness A. The panel heard evidence from Witness A and Witness D that a number of pupils had the impression that Ms McHugh had a medical degree and had been so informed by Ms McHugh. The fact that a number of pupils had this impression does not necessarily lead to the finding that it was Ms McHugh that informed them. However, the panel did hear oral evidence from Witness E that Ms McHugh did describe herself, in her presence and in the presence of pupils, as someone who had completed medical training and was a "qualified medical doctor". This representation, in the presence of pupils, does imply that she had completed a medical degree. The panel is thus satisfied that Ms McHugh implied to pupils that she had completed a medical degree, and that this was not the case. In consequence, the panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Allegation 1.a. is proved. In oral evidence, Witness A and Individual C referred to colleagues who had the belief that Ms McHugh had a medical degree. However, it was not clear whether those colleagues had been so informed by Ms McHugh directly or by others. However, the panel heard evidence from Witness D that Ms McHugh informed him that she had completed a medical degree. The panel also heard evidence from Witness E that she told her, in the presence of pupils, that she had completed her medical training which clearly implies that she has completed a medical degree. Witness A was also copied in to the email in which Ms McHugh describes herself as having completed a medical degree. In consequence, the panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Allegation 1.b. is proved and that Ms McHugh wrote, said, or implied to colleagues that she had completed a medical degree, and that this was not the case. 8 By virtue of the evidence outlined above to include, in particular, the email letter dated 4 September 2015 referred to above, the panel is satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Allegation 1.c. is proved and that Ms McHugh