miss felicity simpson: professional conduct panel outcome · miss felicity simpson was present and...
TRANSCRIPT
Miss Felicity Simpson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the
Secretary of State for Education
December 2017
2
Contents
A. Introduction 3
B. Allegations 4
C. Preliminary applications 6
D. Summary of evidence 6
Documents 6
Witnesses 7
E. Decision and reasons 7
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23
3
Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on
behalf of the Secretary of State
Teacher: Miss Felicity Simpson
NCTL case reference: 16112
Date of determination: 14 December 2017
Former employer: Wales High School Academy Trust (“the School”), Sheffield
A. Introduction
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and
Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 11 – 14 December 2017 at 53 to 55
Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Miss Felicity
Simpson.
The panel members were Ms Alison Robb-Webb (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr
Martin Pilkington (lay panellist) and Mr Tony Woodward (former teacher panellist).
The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Robin Havard of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors.
The presenting officer for the National College was Ms Louisa Atkin of Browne Jacobson
LLP.
Miss Felicity Simpson was present and was represented by Ms Amanda Hart of counsel.
Save where indicated to the contrary, the hearing took place in public and was recorded.
4
B. Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 5
October 2017.
It was alleged that Miss Felicity Simpson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct
and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that:
Whilst employed as a Music Teacher at Wales High School Academy Trust during the
2016/17 academic year;
1. she developed and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student A,
including by:
a. engaging in physical contact with him, including by;
i. allowing him to put his legs on/over her;
ii. sitting on his lap/knee and/or allowing him to sit on hers;
iii. stroking his leg, including on one occasion on or around 17
December 2016;
iv. holding hands, including on one occasion at a public house on or
around 17 December 2016;
v. kissing Student A, on at least one occasion prior to Christmas 2016;
b. engaging in text messaging and/or phone calls with Student A via her
personal mobile phones;
c. meeting with Student A outside of school;
d. buying Student A one or more gifts, including a jumper on or around
Valentine’s Day 2017;
2. her conduct as may be found proven at 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature
and/or was sexually motivated;
3. she failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more
students, including by;
a. socialising with students outside of school, including at a public house on or
around 17 December 2016;
b. buying alcoholic drinks for a group of students, despite the fact that she did
not know whether all of those students were over the age of 18;
5
c. engaging in one or more discussions regarding her feelings about and/or
relationship with Student A, including;
i. when in the company of one or more students on 17 December
2016;
ii. during one or more conversations with Student C;
d. disclosing confidential information regarding Student C to one or more
students on 17 December 2016;
e. asking Student C ‘not to say anything’ as regards her relationship with
Student A or words to that effect;
4. disregarded advice and/or warnings given to her, including by;
a. engaging in physical contact with Student A after 24 November 2016
despite the discussion she had had with the Deputy Headteacher regarding
concerns about her relationship and/or physical contact with Student A;
b. engaging in text/phone contact with Student A after 21 December 2016
despite having been told by the Deputy Headteacher and/or Headteacher
that any communication with students should be through the school email
system only.
Miss Simpson admitted the following facts of the allegation: 1a.i, iv, and v, 1b, 1d, 3a, b,
c.ii and e, 4.a and b. The remainder were denied.
Miss Simpson also admitted that, in respect of those allegations and the facts of those
allegations which had been admitted, such conduct amounted to unacceptable
professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
C. Preliminary applications
Amendment
The presenting officer applied for an amendment to include the words, "or words to that
effect" at the end of particular 3.e. There was no objection from Ms Hart and the panel
allowed the amendment.
Public/Private
The panel considered an application from the presenting officer that those parts of the
hearing when confidential personal information was discussed with regard to a student
and any reference to health issues should be held in private. Ms Hart agreed to the
application.
6
The panel decided that the public interest required that the hearing should be in public,
but agreed that it would hear any evidence or submissions which touched on private or
confidential information in respect of a student, or health issues, in private.
Late documents
Ms Hart applied to introduce a statement from Miss Simpson's mother which provided an
account of the circumstances surrounding Miss Simpson's resignation from the School.
The presenting officer resisted the application on the basis that it was too late and the
content of the statement was not relevant to the issues.
Ms Hart maintained that the evidence of Miss Simpson's mother may assist the panel in
its deliberations on the credibility of certain witnesses, including Miss Simpson.
Furthermore, the presenting officer confirmed that she had had the opportunity to take
instructions on the content of the statement and was therefore not prejudiced.
The panel decided that it was fair to allow the statement into evidence and that it was
potentially relevant.
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 4
Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 19
Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 20 to 42
Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 43 to 93
Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 94 to 231
In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:
A statement from Miss Simpson's mother, Mrs Christine Simpson, dated 8 December
2017 (pages 232-234).
The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the
hearing.
7
Witnesses
The panel heard oral evidence from the following NCTL witnesses:
Witness A, Assistant Headteacher at the School;
Witness B, a cleaner at the School;
Students A, B and C, who were all Year 13 students at the School in the academic
year 2016/2017;
Witness C, Miss Simpson's mother.
Miss Felicity Simpson gave evidence on her own account;
E. Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
The panel has carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision.
The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance
of the hearing.
Brief Summary
Having just qualified as a teacher, Miss Simpson applied for her first teaching job at the
School in Sheffield. The School is a large Academy with a staff of in excess of 100. Miss
Simpson was successful in her application and, in September 2016, as a newly qualified
teacher, Miss Simpson began her employment at the School as a music teacher.
In October 2016, a student, Student C, informed Miss Simpson that there was talk
amongst certain students of Miss Simpson becoming too close to, and spending too
much time in the company of, other students.
In November 2016, Miss Simpson was called to a meeting by a deputy head teacher
Individual A, who reported that certain members of the premises team had reported
concerns about Miss Simpson's level of contact with certain students and, despite further
meetings and a verbal warning being administered to Miss Simpson on 4 January 2017,
the contact between her and certain students continued. This led to a further
investigation which culminated in Miss Simpson resigning her post by letter of 8 March
2017.
8
Findings of fact
Our findings of fact in respect of the allegations are as follows:
Whilst employed as a Music Teacher at Wales High School Academy Trust during
the 2016/17 academic year;
1. you developed and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student
A, including by:
a. engaging in physical contact with him, including by;
i. allowing him to put his legs on/over you;
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
The evidence provided by the National College witnesses related to conduct on the part
of Miss Simpson when she was with students in her classroom and in the music
department communal area.
Taking account of the nature of the allegations, and the fact that both the presenting
officer and Miss Simpson's representative, Witness B, agreed that these allegations
depended very much on the context of what occurred, the panel considered it was
appropriate to set out its assessment of the various witnesses who gave evidence in the
course of the hearing.
In support of this allegation, the National College relied on the evidence of Witness B, a
cleaner at the school, and Students A and C.
Whilst the panel found that Ms Palmer was endeavouring to assist the panel and provide
a truthful account, there were inconsistencies between her written and oral evidence
which led the panel to conclude that her evidence was not reliable.
Witness B described in her written statement an occasion in November 2016 when she
saw a group of around 5 sixth formers and Miss Simpson sitting in a group on the sofa
chairs in the communal area and that one male sixth former, Student A, was sitting on
Miss Simpson's knee. This was what was alleged in particular 1.a.ii.
However, in her oral evidence, Witness B stated that Student A had his legs across Miss
Simpson's legs and could not tell where Student A was sitting. In fact she did not look
and carried on working.
The more reliable evidence came from Student A, Student C and, indeed, Miss Simpson.
The panel had assessed the overall evidence of Student A very carefully. Whilst Student
A had been called to give evidence on behalf of the National College, his account broadly
supported that of Miss Simpson. The panel concluded that Student A gave his evidence
9
in a confident manner, answering questions clearly and succinctly. Nevertheless, when
assessing the extent to which it could rely on his evidence, the panel took into
consideration the fact that he had formed a close relationship with Miss Simpson and
there was a risk that he was endeavouring to be protective of her. When analysing his
evidence, the panel was keen to ensure that, where possible, his account of what took
place was corroborated and supported by other witnesses.
What was not in dispute was that, when in his final year at the school, Student A was a
senior figure amongst the student population, was very confident, and was well regarded
by both fellow students and members of staff. On the evidence that it had heard, the
panel were satisfied that Student A was very comfortable in the company of members of
staff.
The panel also accepted the evidence of witnesses such as Student C and also Miss
Simpson who both stated that Student A was, "tactile" and affectionate which manifested
itself in a physically demonstrative way.
As for Student C, the panel found her to be an impressive witness. She gave her
evidence in a fair and balanced way, accepting on occasion that her recollection may be
a little vague as a result of the passage of time and conceding that, in respect of certain
alleged conduct, alternative interpretations were feasible.
Both Student A and Student C confirmed that there would be occasions when students,
including themselves, would be sitting at the front of Miss Simpson's class and, in the
words of Student C, Student A would use someone's legs as a, "footrest". On occasion,
this would include Miss Simpson. Student C did not witness this on many occasions but,
more particularly, she said, "he'd done the same with me so it was nothing out of the
ordinary".
On this basis, the panel found that Miss Simpson engaged in physical contact with
Student A by allowing him to put his legs on her.
As for allowing Student A to put his legs over her, in the lead up to a production in which
Miss Simpson was heavily involved, students would sit on large chairs, otherwise
described as sofas, which were located in the communal area outside Miss Simpson's
class. It was accepted by Miss Simpson, and the panel found, that she would sit in one of
the large chairs and Student A would then sit on an arm of that chair and rest his legs
over Miss Simpson's legs.
ii. sitting on his lap/knee and/or allowing him to sit on hers;
This was denied by Miss Simpson and the panel found it not proved.
Whilst Miss Simpson had admitted the facts of particular 1.a.i., she denied that she sat
on Student A's lap or knee or that she had allowed him to sit on hers.
10
Student A denied that this occurred and the National College relied on the evidence of
Student C and Student B.
Having found Student C to be an impressive witness, and whilst accepting her evidence
in respect of particular 1.a.i., the panel found her recollection with regard to this particular
to be vague and ambiguous. Student C was unable to recall when she saw either Miss
Simpson or Student A sitting on each other's lap or knee nor was she certain about how
many occasions she had witnessed this, but it was no more than three times.
As for Student B, the panel found her to be unreliable and her evidence was not credible.
Whilst Student B had studied music in the academic year 2015/2016, she had dropped
music as a subject for the academic year 2016/2017. Whereas Students A and C would
visit the music department on a regular basis, Student B had no requirement to do so
from the point of view of her academic studies but she suggested that she would come to
the music department three times a day, at break, lunch, and after school. Student B
stated that, on each occasion, Student A and Miss Simpson would be there. She
suggested that, on each occasion, Student A and Miss Simpson would be, "sitting on top
of each other, arms around the waist, whispering in each other others' ear".
Student B suggested that this took place on the sofas in the communal area that was
open with the seats facing into the room so that both students and staff would be able to
see them when walking around or through that area. Student B said that this started in
mid-October 2016 and continued nearly every day until the end of December 2016 when
she complained to the headteacher and Witness A. Student B suggested that Student A
and Miss Simpson would be sitting on the sofas in the communal area in the manner
described when members of staff would walk through, to include Witness A and
Individual B. The panel considered that this account was wholly implausible and, together
with other inconsistencies in her evidence, led the panel to conclude that it was unable to
rely on any of the evidence provided by Student B.
For these reasons, the panel found that, on the balance of probabilities, this particular
was not proved.
iii. stroking his leg, including on one occasion on or around 17
December 2016;
Miss Simpson denied this particular and the panel found it not proved.
It was alleged by the National College that, when in a public house following a carol
concert, Student A was sitting next to Miss Simpson who stroked Student A's leg.
Whilst a number of other students were present, the only person to give evidence in
support of this particular was Student B. The panel repeated its assessment of Student B
as a witness. She suggested that Student D was trying to hold a conversation with
Student A but Student A was distracted by Miss Simpson stroking his leg. It was
11
suggested that this went on for several minutes. Student B indicated that she was sitting
next to Student C and opposite Student A and Miss Simpson. However, Student C, who
did not witness Miss Simpson stroking Student A's leg, stated that Student B was sitting
some distance from her.
Miss Simpson emphatically denied stroking Student A's leg in the manner described by
Student B, and the panel preferred her evidence and found that she did not do so.
For these reasons, the panel found, on the balance of probabilities, particular 1.a.iii. not
proved.
iv. holding hands, including on one occasion at a public house on or
around 17 December 2016;
This was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
Whilst the particular is drafted in a way which would suggest that Miss Simpson held
hands with Student A on more than one occasion, the only occasion when there is
evidence that they did so related to the time when they were at the public house on 17
December 2016 following a carol concert.
The panel accepted Miss Simpson's evidence and found that she and Student A held
hands briefly in the course of a humorous conversation they were holding with Students
C and E. Student A and Miss Simpson were sitting on one side of the table with Students
C and E sitting on the other side. Miss Simpson stated that they were pretending to be
couples and, in doing so, she and Student A held hands. It was described by Miss
Simpson as, "ridiculous" and that all 4 participants realised that it would be impossible.
v. kissing Student A, on at least one occasion prior to Christmas
2016;
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
This incident occurred after the last performance which was a show put on by the School
and in which both Student A and Miss Simpson had been heavily involved.
At the conclusion of the performance, there was great celebration amongst students and
staff, many people hugging and congratulating each other on a successful production.
The panel accepted Miss Simpson's evidence and found that, without warning, Student A
kissed Miss Simpson on the lips. Momentarily, Miss Simpson returned his kiss but then
pushed him away and immediately regretted what had happened.
It was much later in February 2017 that Miss Simpson informed Student C that Student A
had kissed her. This was the only reason this incident became known. However, Student
C confirmed that Miss Simpson stated nothing else had happened. In her oral evidence,
Student C said that Miss Simpson had confirmed that she regretted kissing Student A
12
and "… did not want it to happen again". Student C confirmed that there was, "no sexual
contact between them. No suggestion from Miss Simpson that it was to be a sexual
relationship".
On the basis of its findings, the panel found that Miss Simpson had developed and
engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student A by engaging in physical contact
with him. Allegation 1. was therefore found proved.
b. engaging in text messaging and/or phone calls with Student A
via her personal mobile phones;
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
Miss Simpson accepted and the panel found that she and Student A would exchange text
messages each week, which had nothing to do with Student A's academic work but
would cover topics and issues in respect of their personal lives and shared personal
interests.
c. meeting with Student A outside of school;
This particular was denied by Miss Simpson and the panel found it not proved.
The evidence on which the NCTL relied related to Miss Simpson's attendance with
Student A at concerts. The NCTL also relied on Student B's assertion that Miss Simpson
had admitted to her that she had been out for a meal with Student A.
Whilst the NCTL accepted that the concerts attended by Miss Simpson were public
events, it was suggested that it was the fact that Miss Simpson attended with Student A
which supported the allegation that this formed part of the way in which she had engaged
in, and developed, an inappropriate relationship with Student A.
However, the first concert attended by Miss Simpson following her joining the School was
at a concert. Student B was performing at the concert and she asked Miss Simpson to
attend. Miss Simpson asked her Head of Department whether this was acceptable and
he positively encouraged her to do so. Furthermore, when she attended, Miss Simpson
noticed that the deputy head, Witness A, was also there.
Miss Simpson was then asked by Student A to attend a concert given by the Salvation
Army. Having received encouragement from her Head of Department to attend the earlier
concert, Miss Simpson agreed to do so and thoroughly enjoyed the occasion. There was
no suggestion that anything improper occurred. Indeed, Miss Simpson and her family had
connections with the Salvation Army in any event.
The third concert was the carol concert which her head of department requested her to
attend and there were a number of staff and parents in attendance.
13
Finally, Miss Simpson was herself playing in a concert and a number of students asked
to attend. In the event, only Student A attended but, having assisted Miss Simpson to
carry some items to her car, he then drove home.
The panel did not find that these events represented an attempt by Miss Simpson to
encourage or develop an inappropriate relationship with Student A.
As for the allegation that Miss Simpson went out for a meal with Student A, which was
denied by both, the only evidence on which the National College relied was from Student
B who, in turn, suggested that it was something that she had been told by Miss Simpson.
Without any further supporting evidence, and having assessed Student B's evidence as
unreliable, the panel was not satisfied that the National College had proved, on the
balance of probabilities, that Miss Simpson had been for a meal with Student A.
d. buying Student A one or more gifts, including a jumper on or around
Valentine’s Day 2017;
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
The panel accepted Miss Simpson's evidence and found that she bought [redacted] and
gave it to him. Miss Simpson also accepted that the gift was linked with Valentine's Day.
However, neither Miss Simpson nor Student A bought a card for each other. Miss
Simpson confirmed that she gave Student A the gift as a thank you for the support he
had shown during a period when Miss Simpson felt very isolated and unhappy.
Furthermore, both Student A and Miss Simpson had recently ended long term
relationships.
The panel accepted that Miss Simpson would habitually give gifts to students and also
her friends and family. Indeed, Student C confirmed that Miss Simpson had given her a
[redacted] as a gift.
Nevertheless, the panel was satisfied that it was inappropriate for Miss Simpson to give
such a gift to Student A. Her lack of judgement was of particular concern, taking account
of the meetings that she had already held with the School where clear guidance and
instruction had been given to her to maintain proper boundaries. A verbal warning had
also been given to her and confirmed in writing only a month before.
On the basis of its findings in respect of particulars a., b., c., and d., the panel found
Allegation 1. proved in that Miss Simpson had developed and engaged in an
inappropriate relationship with Student A.
2. your conduct as may be found proven at 1 above was conduct of a sexual
nature and/or was sexually motivated;
This allegation was denied by Miss Simpson and the panel found it not proved.
14
In reaching its decision, the panel relied on its findings of fact in respect of the particulars
of allegation 1. found proved.
The panel had also assessed the evidence provided by Student A and, most particularly,
Miss Simpson and that it was the conduct and intentions of Miss Simpson as opposed to
Student A which were material.
Miss Simpson had accepted, and admitted from the outset, that she had developed
and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student A.
However, she had always denied that underlying that inappropriate relationship was an
intention to form a sexual relationship with Student A.
Miss Simpson had engaged fully with these proceedings. She had given evidence and
had been questioned carefully by the presenting officer. The panel had concluded that,
whilst Miss Simpson fully recognised her naivety -and her very serious errors of
judgement, and whilst she readily volunteered that she had formed a close relationship
with Student A for whom she had feelings, they were not of a romantic or sexual nature
and she was not physically attracted to him.
Indeed, the openness with which Miss Simpson accepted that she had feelings for
Student A was best illustrated by what she said in a meeting with Witness A and the
headteacher on 9 March 2017 when the notes say, "FS became very emotional and
asked for help as she had feelings for [Student A] and regardless of the support that had
been put in place, could not ignore these".
Miss Simpson stated that she, "adored" Student A but not romantically or in a sexual
way.
With regard to this allegation, which is pleaded in the alternative, the NCTL confirmed
that the allegation that Miss Simpson's conduct under allegation 1. was conduct of a
sexual nature was restricted to allegation 1.v. This related to the incident when Student A
kissed Miss Simpson and she initially responded then immediately pulled away,
regretting what had happened. Student C confirmed Miss Simpson regretted what had
happened and that it would not happen again. The panel found this was important
corroborative evidence from Student C and supported the panel's conclusion that the
circumstances surrounding the "kiss" was not conduct of a sexual nature on the part of
Miss Simpson.
The panel also accepted Miss Simpson's evidence, and found, that it was normal for her
to kiss members of her family on the lips, such as her sister and grandfather, as well as
close friends.
As for the panel's conclusions with regard to whether Miss Simpson's admitted conduct
under allegation 1. was sexually motivated, the panel was satisfied that it was unable to
infer from the facts admitted and found, that Miss Simpson's conduct towards Student A
15
was sexually motivated. There was no doubt that it was extremely ill-judged,
unprofessional and inappropriate, but having assessed Miss Simpson when giving her
evidence and having taken into consideration the relevant and supportive character
evidence which had been produced, the panel was not prepared to find, on the balance
of probabilities, that her conduct was sexually motivated.
3. she failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more
students, including by;
a. socialising with students outside of school, including at a public
house on or around 17 December 2016;
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
The panel relied on its findings of fact in respect of particular 1.a.iv., above.
Miss Simpson attended public house after the carol concert on 17 December 2016. She
believed that other members of staff were going to attend as well but it transpired that
she was the only teacher present. Rather than leaving the public house, she stayed and
engaged in inappropriate conversations with Students A, C and E. Both the level of
familiarty and the content of the conversations were inappropriate and represented a
clear failure on the part of Miss Simpson to maintain appropriate boundaries with the
students.
b. buying alcoholic drinks for a group of students, despite the fact that
she did not know whether all of those students were over the age of
18;
This was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
This again took place on 17 December 2016 at the public house. Miss Simpson stated
and the panel found that she did not think about the potential consequences before
buying drinks, to include alcoholic drinks, for several students without knowing how old
they were. She described her behaviour in doing so as, "beyond stupid".
c. engaging in one or more discussions regarding her feelings about
and/or relationship with Student A, including;
i. when in the company of one or more students on 17 December 2016;
This was denied by Miss Simpson and the panel found it not proved.
Indeed, no evidence had been produced by the NCTL to support this particular. The
panel had found that such discussions that took place were based on a joke between
Miss Simpson and Students A, C and E. This was confirmed by Students A and C.
ii. during one or more conversations with Student C;
16
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
Miss Simpson accepted that in February 2017 she had confided in Student C about her
feelings for Student A and that she was very fond of him. The panel found that to have
such conversations with a student was a clear failure to maintain proper professional
boundaries.
d. disclosing confidential information regarding Student C to one or
more students on 17 December 2016;
This particular was denied by Miss Simpson and the panel found it not proved.
Again, this related to the events which occurred on the evening of 17 December 2016 at
the public house following the carol concert.
The evidence on which the National College relied was that of Student B. Miss Simpson
was supposed to have made a remark which included some confidential information
about Student C.
However, Student B suggested that this group was made up of some 10 students but
Student B was not there when this remark was allegedly made by Miss Simpson.
Consequently, and taking account of the assessment of the panel with regard to Student
B's reliability as a witness, there was no evidence to indicate to whom this confidential
information was supposedly disclosed with regard to Student C.
The National College had failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that Miss
Simpson had disclosed confidential information regarding Student C to one or more
students on 17 December 2016.
e. asking Student C ‘not to say anything’ as regards her relationship with
Student A;
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
Having confirmed that she had feelings towards Student A, Miss Simpson accepted that
she requested Student C not to say anything to anyone, including members of staff, with
regard to her relationship with Student A. Miss Simpson's explanation, which the panel
accepted, was that she wished to manage the disclosure of that relationship herself.
However, the panel was satisfied that it was inappropriate and unprofessional to request
a student to refrain from saying anything about a matter which may have been of
concern. To do so was a failure to maintain proper boundaries with Student C.
4. disregarded advice and/or warnings given to her, including by;
a. engaging in physical contact with Student A after 24 November 2016
despite the discussion she had had with the Deputy Headteacher
17
regarding concerns about her relationship and/or physical contact
with Student A;
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
The panel was satisfied that, at a meeting on 24 November 2016, Witness A made it
clear to Miss Simpson that, regardless of the fact that only four years separated Miss
Simpson and the Year 13 students, they were students and she was a teacher. There
needed to be clear boundaries between them as Miss Simpson had stated that a number
of students were confiding in her and seeking her support.
Witness A told her of the complaints that she had received from Witness B and one other
regarding her contact with Student A. Witness A told Miss Simpson that she had to tell
Student A that his behaviour was inappropriate and wrong. Miss Simpson asked Witness
A for help to do this and Witness A agreed to speak with Student A.
Witness A gave Miss Simpson clear guidance on how to behave and that students
needed to respect boundaries as at times they could fail to do so.
Notwithstanding that, Miss Simpson had accepted that, in December 2016, she returned
Student A's kiss, albeit momentarily, following the last performance of Les Miserables.
Furthermore, when at the public house on 17 December 2016, she held hands, albeit
briefly, with Student A.
b. engaging in text/phone contact with Student A after 21 December 2016
despite having been told by the Deputy Headteacher and/or
Headteacher that any communication with students should be through
the school email system only.
This particular was admitted by Miss Simpson and the panel found it proved.
The minute of the meeting of 21 December 2016, which Miss Simpson attended with the
headteacher and Witness A, stated as follows:
"PD asked LMc to outline absolute directives for FS to follow as the previous
advice had not been followed. These are :
1. FS should not meet students socially – if other staff are making
arrangements for social events which involve the presence of students, she
may join other members of staff but should remove herself immediately
should the situation occur when no other staff are actually in attendance at
the event.
2. In school, if FS finds herself alone with a sixth form student, she must
remain visible and have an open door at all times.
18
3. If a student chooses to use FS's classroom for private study, she ensures
she is visible at all times.
4. Any communication with students either during or after school is through
school email only."
In February 2017, Student A made contact with Miss Simpson via her personal mobile
phone. The panel accepted that, at an earlier date, Miss Simpson had deleted Student
A's number from her mobile phone. However, notwithstanding the clear direction
provided by Witness A and the headteacher, rather than ignoring and deleting the text
message from Student A, Miss Simpson responded.
Miss Simpson maintained that she did so because she felt extremely isolated and
distressed at the situation that had arisen at the school. She accepted, and the panel
found, that she would text Student A and hold conversations with him via text on perhaps
one occasion each week. Further, on one occasion, Miss Simpson showed Student C an
exchange that had taken place between her and Student A.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or conviction of a relevant offence
Having found allegations 1.a.i., iv., and v., 1.b., 1.d., 3.a., b., c.ii., and e., 4.a., and b. to
have been proven, the panel had gone on to consider whether the facts of those proven
allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may
bring the profession into disrepute.
In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition
of Teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”, and the Teachers Standards.
The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Miss Simpson in relation to the facts found
proven, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by
reference to Part Two, Miss Simpson was in breach of the following standards:
Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and
at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position;
o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with
statutory provisions.
Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach,
19
Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
The panel was satisfied that Miss Simpson is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct
in that her conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.
This is in respect of allegations 1.a.i., iv., and v., 1.b., 1.d., 3.a., b., c.ii., and e, 4.a., and
b.
The panel had taken into account how the teaching profession was viewed by others and
considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the
community. The panel had taken account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can
hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the
way they behave.
The findings of misconduct were very serious and the conduct displayed would likely
have a negative impact on Miss Simpson’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the
public perception. The panel therefore found that Miss Simpson's actions constituted
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State
Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct
that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to
consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition
order by the Secretary of State.
In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order
should be made, the panel had to consider whether it was an appropriate and
proportionate measure, and whether it was in the public interest to do so. Prohibition
orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been
apportioned, although they were likely to have punitive effect.
The panel had considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the
Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers ("the Advice") and, having done so, had
found each of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the protection of pupils; the
maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper
standards of conduct.
The panel also acknowledged that there was a public interest in a teacher who is able to
make a valuable contribution to the profession being able to continue in that profession,
as outlined in the judgment in Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWHC
109 (Admin).
The panel’s findings against Miss Simpson involved the development of, and engaging
in, an inappropriate relationship with a student and a persistent failure to maintain proper
20
boundaries despite clear warnings and guidance. The panel considered that public
confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found
proved was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the
profession.
The panel also considered that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper
standards of conduct in the profession was also present as, for the same reasons, the
conduct found against Miss Simpson was outside that which could reasonably be
tolerated.
The behaviour of Miss Simpson took place over a number of months and therefore could
not be characterised as isolated. The conduct which led to Miss Simpson's failure to
maintain proper boundaries was also very serious and, consequently, the failures to
abide by the Teachers' Standards as identified were also very serious.
The panel decided that her conduct was deliberate and that she was not acting under
duress, even though she may have been unhappy and distressed by what took place.
However, the difficulties she experienced were to a large extent of her own making by
failing to conduct herself as a teacher and ensuring that proper boundaries were
maintained.
Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel
considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition
order taking into account the effect that this would have on Miss Simpson. In considering
the issue of proportionality, the panel applied the following test, namely whether a less
intrusive measure could be used without unacceptably compromising the achievement of
the relevant objective and whether, having regard to these matters and the severity of the
consequences for Miss Simpson, a fair balance could be struck between the rights of
Miss Simpson and the interests of the public.
In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel considered the public interest
considerations both in favour of and against prohibition. The panel took further account of
the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain
behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In the list of such behaviours, those that are
relevant in this case are the serious departures from the personal and professional
conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards.
The panel decided there were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being
appropriate. The panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating
factors to militate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate
measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the
behaviour in this case.
The panel heard evidence relating to Miss Simpson's situation at the relevant time.
21
Miss Simpson was a newly qualified teacher. She was 22 years old when she started her
employment at the School. Her very recent experience, when she herself was a student
in the sixth form, was that she had formed friendships with her teachers which continued
after she left school.
This was Miss Simpson's first post as a newly qualified teacher. The panel accepted that
she found it difficult to integrate with other older and more experienced members of staff
in this large academy. The panel concluded that she probably felt more comfortable in
the company of sixth form students and this led to the problems that developed. Whilst
this did not excuse her behaviour in any way, it offered some sort of explanation.
There was persuasive evidence that Miss Simpson is a person who is committed to the
teaching profession and has shown considerable potential. Her teaching practice reports
and also the assessment of her performance as a teacher when at the School and
subsequently refer to her as someone who shows excellent skills in the classroom.
The panel was also satisfied that Miss Simpson was intent on inspiring pupils to excel
and reach their potential.
The panel noted that Miss Simpson is a person of previous good character and, other
than the circumstances giving rise to the current allegations, she has an excellent record
of professional performance. The panel had read carefully the testimonials which had
been produced on her behalf, all of which were highly supportive and relevant.
Indeed, the panel had read that the referees were all aware of the nature of proceedings
and were still prepared to support Miss Simpson. This included a reference from her
current employer, the Doncaster Music Service. Whilst the entirety of the reference is
germane to our recommendation, the following comments by the Operations Manager
are noteworthy:
"I can confirm that I am aware of the NCTL allegations against my employee.
Felicity was open and honest, which I very much appreciated from the beginning."
"In essence, since she has been providing musical and vocal tuition in our
schools, we have had glowing reports back. It is clear she will grow the business
for the service.
I can confirm that I am our safeguarding officer, holding a level three certificate. I
can also confirm that Felicity attended our staff safeguarding training in September
2017".
"Felicity is a born natural and outstanding teacher and would be an asset to any
establishment".
It was clear to the panel from oral and written evidence that Miss Simpson has a high
degree of insight into her misconduct and is deeply remorseful. She had admitted her
22
wrongdoing from the very outset and had cooperated fully with the investigation. She had
taken important, positive steps to address personal issues and move forward
successfully in her new role. Miss Simpson had maintained her professionalism
throughout these proceedings. She had also voluntarily sought out relevant training in
relation to safeguarding.
Miss Simpson's professional reputation had already been blemished as a result of her
conduct. In the particular circumstances of this case, the public finding of unacceptable
professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute was a
sanction in itself and would be with Miss Simpson throughout her career as a teacher.
The panel had carried out its own assessment of the risk of repetition of the type of
behaviour which gave rise to these proceedings. Taking into account her level of insight
and remorse, the remedial steps she has taken, and the impression she made in the
course of this hearing, the panel was satisfied that the risk of repetition of such conduct
was very remote.
The panel had taken all of the circumstances into account, when conducting its balancing
exercise to determine whether it was necessary to recommend to the Secretary of State
that a prohibition order should or should not be made.
On the one hand, Miss Simpson's conduct and the consequent breaches of the Teachers
Standards were serious.
However, whilst not for a moment minimising the seriousness of that conduct, in the
panel's judgment, a prohibition order in relation to Miss Simpson was neither
proportionate nor necessary in order to protect the public interest. She had shown insight
and remorse. The panel accepted that, having fully participated in the process, the
experience of appearing before the panel will reinforce the seriousness of her conduct.
She had taken remedial steps and the risk of repetition of the conduct which led to these
proceedings had been assessed as remote.
The public concern at the sort of conduct found against Miss Simpson was adequately
reflected in the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring
the profession into disrepute.
Finally, there was a public interest in retaining a teacher of Miss Simpson's evident ability
within the profession.
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the
panel in respect of no sanction.
23
In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that is
published by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers.
In this case, the panel has found allegations 1.a.i., iv., and v., 1.b., 1.d., 3.a., b., c.ii., and
e., 4.a., and b. proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable
professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Where the
panel has found the facts not proven I have put these matters from my mind. The panel
has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Miss Simpson should not be
the subject of a prohibition order as the panel are of the view that, “In the particular
circumstances of this case, the public finding of unacceptable professional conduct and
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute was a sanction in itself.”
In particular the panel has found that Miss Simpson is in breach of the following
standards:
Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and
at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position;
o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with
statutory provisions.
Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach,
Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.
The panel finds that the conduct of Miss Simpson fell significantly short of the standards
expected of the profession.
The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a finding of failure to
maintain proper boundaries.
I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in
the public interest. In considering that for this case I have considered the overall aim of a
prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the
profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would
achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.
I have also asked myself whether or not a less intrusive measure, such as the published
finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider
whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have
considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Miss Simpson, and the impact that will
have on her, is proportionate.
24
In this case I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect
children. The panel has observed Miss Simpson’s behaviour, “involved the development
of, and engaging in, an inappropriate relationship with a student and a persistent failure
to maintain proper boundaries despite clear warnings and guidance.” A prohibition order
would therefore prevent such a risk from being present. I have also taken into account
the panel’s comments on insight and remorse which the panel sets out as follows, “Miss
Simpson has a high degree of insight into her misconduct and is deeply remorseful.” The
panel has also commented that Miss Simpson had, “admitted her wrongdoing from the
very outset and had cooperated fully with the investigation.” I have therefore given this
element considerable weight in reaching my decision.
I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public
confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “the conduct found against Miss
Simpson was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.” I am particularly mindful
of the finding of breach of boundaries in this case and the impact that such a finding has
on the reputation of the profession.
I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of
all teachers and that failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public
as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations I have had
to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed
citizen.”
I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional
conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as
being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this
case.
I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Miss Simpson herself. A
prohibition order would prevent Miss Simpson from continuing in the teaching profession.
A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of her contribution to the
profession for the period that it is in force. The panel note that Miss Simpson is, “a person
of previous good character and, other than the circumstances giving rise to the current
allegations, she has an excellent record of professional performance.” The panel went on
to say the testimonials produced on Miss Simpson’s behalf were, “highly supportive and
relevant.”
In this case I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning Miss
Simpson’s insight and remorse. The panel has said she had, “taken important, positive
steps to address personal issues and move forward successfully in her new role.” The
panel went on to say, “She had taken remedial steps and the risk of repetition of the
conduct which led to these proceedings had been assessed as remote.”
I have also given weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that
Miss Simpson has made to the profession. The panel reference “persuasive evidence
25
that Miss Simpson is a person who is committed to the teaching profession and has
shown considerable potential.” This evidence included her teaching practice reports and
assessment of her performance as a teacher which refer to Miss Simpson’s skills as
“excellent”.
I have considered the panel’s view that, “a prohibition order in relation to Miss Simpson
was neither proportionate nor necessary in order to protect the public interest”. The panel
say in relation to the public confidence, “The public concern at the sort of conduct found
against Miss Simpson was adequately reflected in the findings of unacceptable
professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute.”
Whilst recognising that the behaviours shown by Miss Simpson are serious I am of the
view in light of the significant insight and remorse shown, along with the contribution Miss
Simpson has made to the teaching profession that a prohibition order is not proportionate
and in the public interest in order to achieve the aims which a prohibition order is
intended to achieve. I believe that the published finding of unacceptable professional
conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute is a proportionate
response to the misconduct that has been found in this case.
Decision maker: Dawn Dandy
Date: 20 December 2017
This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of
State.