Mrs Anna Johnson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

November 2018

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 9

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mrs Anna Johnson

Teacher ref number:

Teacher date of birth:

TRA reference: 16903

Date of determination: 8 November 2018

Former employer: Phoenix Centre, Carrwood Primary School, Bradford (“the

School”)

A. Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the

TRA”) convened on 7 to 8 November 2018 at Cheylesmore House, Quinton Road,

Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mrs Anna Johnson.

The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr John

Armstrong (lay panellist) and Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nick Leale of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors.

The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson LLP

solicitors.

Mrs Johnson was not present but was represented by Mr Jack Rylatt of Counsel.

The hearing took place in public and was recorded, other than those parts of the hearing

that made reference to Mrs Johnson's [redacted], at which times the panel went into

private session.

4

B. Allegations

The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 13

August 2018.

It was alleged that Mrs Anna Johnson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct

and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as

Unit Manager for the Phoenix Centre, Carrwood Primary School, Bradford, she:

1. Displayed aggressive and/or inappropriate behaviour towards Pupil A on or

around 14 March 2017, including by:

a. pulling his hair;

b. pulling his head back.

2. Provided false and/or misleading information regarding the incident involving Pupil

A on or around 14 March 2017 when completing the accident record, including by:

a. failing to mention that she had made physical contact with Pupil A;

b. stating that Pupil A had walked backwards into a wall and hit his head when

this was not the case.

3. Her conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(a)-(b) amounted to a failure

to adopt the Positive Handling Policy and/or Team Teach practice in safe restraint

of a child.

4. Her conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 2 (a)-(b) was dishonest and/or

lacked integrity.

All of the allegations were denied by Mrs Johnson.

C. Preliminary applications

Mrs Johnson's representative Mr Rylatt and the presenting officer effectively jointly

applied for the hearing to proceed in Mrs Johnson's absence. Mr Rylatt stated that he

was able to receive instructions from Mrs Johnson but due to her [redacted] brought

about by [redacted] she did not wish to attend the hearing and was content for matters to

proceed in her absence.

Mrs Johnson's apparent [redacted] issues were supported by a letter from her [redacted]

confirming her [redacted]. In the circumstances, the panel were content that it was in the

interests of justice for the hearing to proceed in Mrs Johnson's absence. She was

represented by Counsel and it was confirmed by Mr Rylatt that she would not attend the

5

hearing should it be adjourned to a later date. Mrs Johnson had also provided a

statement in her defence which was contained within the bundle of documents.

D. Summary of evidence

Documents

In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:

Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 2 to 3

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 16

Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 18 to 33

Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 35 to 318

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 320 to 443

In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:

i) Letter of [redacted] relating to Mrs Johnson's [redacted] which had been put forward

in support of the application to proceed with the hearing in absence (page 444).

ii) Two references and attached e-mail exchange (pages 445 to 451).

The panel were also informed that the documents in the bundle at pages 323 to 347 (Mrs

Johnson's statement), 348 to 352 (coloured photos) and 424 to 426 (statement of

Individual A) had not been disclosed in accordance with paragraph 4.20 of the procedural

rules. The panel granted permission for the documents to be admitted in evidence.

The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the

hearing.

Witnesses

The panel heard oral evidence from:

i) Individual B – Pupil Inclusion Mentor at the School;

ii) Individual C – Behaviour and Inclusion Manager at the School;

iii) Individual D – Class Teacher at the School.

6

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.

This is a case relating to the Head of a Behaviour Centre (the Phoenix Centre) which is

attached to the School in Bradford. It was alleged that the teacher, Mrs Anna Johnson,

had attended upon two of her colleagues and a pupil during a period of restraint of the

pupil in the 'quiet' room. Having taken over direct care of the pupil in the room it was

alleged that, when the pupil made an attempt to bite her, she pulled his hair and thereby

pulled his head back in contravention of the School’s policies. It was further alleged that

thereafter she dishonestly prepared a false and misleading account of events in an

accident report form in which she failed to mention the physical contact that she had

made with the pupil, and falsely and dishonestly stated that the pupil had hit his head as

a result of walking into a wall.

Findings of fact

Our findings of fact are as follows:

The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for

these reasons:

1. Displayed aggressive and/or inappropriate behaviour towards Pupil A on or

around 14 March 2017, including by:

a. pulling his hair;

b. pulling his head back.

The panel found the two witnesses (Individual B and Individual C) to these events to be

credible and consistent witnesses. Their evidence was tested under oath by way of

cross-examination and further questions from the panel. The panel found their evidence

to be reliable. They acted entirely as would have been expected of them in a dynamic

and difficult situation. They were very close to Mrs Johnson and Pupil A as they left the

room and had an unobscured view. Throughout these proceedings, they have maintained

their account that Mrs Johnson pulled Pupil A's hair and pulled his head back as he

attempted to bite her. The panel has no doubt that they have recounted an accurate

account of what happened. This compares to the lack of credibility in how Mrs Johnson

has described the incident at various times. The panel does not find credible her

suggestion that Pupil A, who was at all times in close proximity to her, hit his head

against the wall in the room. There are substantial inconsistencies in how she describes

7

the incident in her investigation interview and thereafter describes the incident in her

written statements for the purposes of these proceedings. Her evidence has not been

tested under oath or cross-examination. The panel therefore prefers the evidence of

Individual B and Individual C and finds that it is more likely than not that Mrs Johnson

pulled Pupil A's hair and in doing so, pulled his head back as they were leaving the room,

as a result of Pupil A's attempt to bite her.

The panel further finds that this amounted to inappropriate action in all the circumstances

by Mrs Johnson and the panel considered it to be aggressive behaviour, albeit in a way

that was reactive to a child presenting in a difficult manner, and is best described as

assertive and disproportionately forceful. The panel accepts that Mrs Johnson put herself

in a difficult situation and was faced with a child who was trying to bite her.

2. Provided false and/or misleading information regarding the incident involving

Pupil A on or around 14 March 2017 when completing the accident record,

including by:

a. failing to mention that you had made physical contact with Pupil A;

b. stating that Pupil A had walked backwards into a wall and hit his head

when this was not the case.

Having considered all of the evidence very carefully and having made the findings at 1.

above in relation to the pulling of Pupil A's hair and the pulling back of his head, the panel

concluded that Mrs Johnson's account of what happened on the accident form was

fabricated and therefore false and misleading. The panel is satisfied, having carefully

considered the evidence of those witnesses who provided tested evidence under oath

and the inconsistent written evidence of Mrs Johnson that has not been tested under

oath, that there was no incident that led to Pupil A hitting his head against the wall. The

accident record states that Pupil A 'walked backwards into wall and banged his head'.

This description of events bears no resemblance to the events described by the

witnesses nor to the events described by Mrs Johnson herself at other places in the

hearing bundle. In addition, Mrs Johnson fails to mention the existence of any physical

contact between her and Pupil A during the period of restraint, as the panel has found

factually occurred. Mrs Johnson herself accepts that the Accident Record Form (record

form) is inaccurate (bundle page 321). The events simply did not unfold as described by

Mrs Johnson in the accident record. It is therefore a false and misleading record of

events.

3. Your conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(a)-(b) amounted to a

failure to adopt the Positive Handling Policy and/or Team Teach practice in

safe restraint of a child.

8

It must follow from the panel's findings at 1. above that Mrs Johnson pulled Pupil A's hair

and pulled his head back at the material time, that this amounted to a failure to adopt the

school's Positive Handling Policy and Team Teach practice in safe restraint of a child.

4. Your conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 2 (a)-(b) was dishonest

and/or lacked integrity.

The panel has concluded that Mrs Johnson can only have produced the false accident

record (as the panel has found by way of its findings in relation to factual particulars

paragraph 2) with dishonest intent. It was produced on the same day as the incident took

place and, as the panel has found, amounts to a wholly inaccurate account of what took

place. It was a clearly dishonest attempt to mislead any reader into believing that events

unfolded as described within it. The incident did not take place as described. Mrs

Johnson therefore acted dishonestly when she prepared the accident record. Any

ordinary decent person would conclude that such conduct is dishonest. It must also

follow that such dishonest conduct lacks integrity as judged by the expectations of a

teacher and leader.

Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute

Having found a number of the allegations to have been proven, the panel has gone on to

consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable

professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: the

prohibition of teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”.

Unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into

disrepute is made out when serious misconduct occurs that falls significantly short of the

standard of behaviour expected of a teacher.

The panel has carefully considered the proved facts at allegations 1. and 3. and has

concluded that this one-off incident was not so serious in and of itself as to amount to

unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into

disrepute.

Mrs Johnson was in a difficult situation in a challenging educational setting. Pupil A was

attempting to bite her and she reacted, on this one occasion, in an inappropriate way.

She was reacting in some way to Pupil A's attempts to bite her, which came about

immediately after she had intervened in the ongoing and justifiable restraint of Pupil A.

Notwithstanding that she reacted in an inappropriate and unnecessarily assertive way,

the panel is satisfied that in these circumstances, her conduct was neither grave enough

nor lacking moral opprobrium to such an extent as to amount to serious misconduct and

therefore unacceptable professional conduct. The panel is satisfied that there was a

9

breach of Part Two of the Teachers' Standards but the breach was not serious enough to

pass the required threshold to amount to unacceptable professional conduct.

The panel is however satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Johnson in relation to the facts

found proved at allegations 2. and 4., involved significantly more serious breaches of the

Teachers’ Standards. As Part Two states, teachers must uphold public trust in the

profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour.

In preparing a fabricated accident report form in the way described above, the panel is

satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Johnson amounts to misconduct of a serious nature

which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The record was

prepared inaccurately with dishonest intent. That is a grave and serious thing for any

professional person to do, particularly when responsible for the welfare of vulnerable

children.

Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that Mrs Johnson is guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct in relation to the facts at allegations 2. and 4..

The panel has taken into account how the teaching profession is viewed by others and

considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the

community. The panel has 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 are serious and the conduct displayed at allegations 2. and 4.

would likely have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially

damaging the public perception.

The panel therefore finds that Mrs Johnson's actions also constitute 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/conduct that

may bring the profession into disrepute, it is 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 has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate

measure, and whether it is 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

are likely to have punitive effect.

10

The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the

Advice and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case,

namely: the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and

upholding proper standards of conduct.

In light of the panel’s findings against Mrs Johnson, which include a finding of dishonesty,

the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened

if conduct such as that found against Mrs Johnson were not treated with the utmost

seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

The panel considered that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper

standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against

Mrs Johnson was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

In view of 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 Mrs Johnson.

In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest

considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mrs

Johnson. 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:

serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the

Teachers’ Standards;

dishonesty especially where there have been serious consequences, and/or it has

been repeated and/or covered up.

Even though 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.

Mrs Johnson did have a previously good history as a teacher and as a leader of the

Phoenix Unit and the panel accepts that the incident was out of character. This was a

one-off event and she was dealing with a complex and stressful situation. The panel

believes that her actions in relation to the accident record were not pre-meditated, but

rather a reactionary decision to prepare a document that was a gross misrepresentation

of the facts. Whilst the content of the accident form was inaccurate and there was a

dishonest intent in its compilation, there was, fortunately, no long term adverse impact on

the pupil's well-being. Mrs Johnson did in fact seek first aid immediately after the incident

and did speak to one of Pupil A's parents. These factors reduce the seriousness of the

dishonesty that occurred.

11

The panel has read, at the end of Mrs Johnson's statement, some insight by her into her

behaviour and she has therefore demonstrated some limited reflection on what

happened. The impact of the mitigation is limited by her failure to accept responsibility for

her actions. She also questioned the integrity of the witnesses. The panel found these

collective features to be disappointing.

On balance, the panel considered the declaration of unacceptable professional conduct

and conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute to be sufficient sanction for a

teacher of the previous good standing of Mrs Johnson, as cited in the two previous

OFSTED inspections of the School and the positive character references put forward on

her behalf.

The panel considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no

recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made

by the panel is sufficient.

The panel is of the view that applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen

recommending no prohibition order is a proportionate and appropriate response. Given

that the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the possible

spectrum and in light of the mitigating factors that were present in this case, the panel

has determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order will not be appropriate in

this case. The panel considers that the publication of the adverse findings it has made is

sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher, as to the standards of

behaviour that are not acceptable and meets the public interest requirement of declaring

proper standards of 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 sanction.

In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the

Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.

In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that some of

those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may

bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, where the panel has found the facts

proven do not amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct likely to bring the

profession into disrepute, I have put those matters from my mind, other than that the

incidents led to the behaviours where unacceptable conduct has been found.

The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mrs Anna Johnson

should not be the subject of a prohibition order. The panel has recommended that the

findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession

12

into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the

public interest.

In particular, the panel has found that Mrs Anna Johnson is in breach of the following

standards:

teachers must uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of

ethics and behaviour.

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 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 Mrs Johnson, and the impact that will

have on her, is proportionate and in the public interest.

In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect

children. The panel has observed, “The record was prepared inaccurately with dishonest

intent. That is a grave and serious thing for any professional person to do, particularly

when responsible for the welfare of vulnerable children.”

A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I

have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the

panel sets out as follows, “ some insight by her into her behaviour and she has therefore

demonstrated some limited reflection on what happened. The impact of the mitigation is

limited by her failure to accept responsibility for her actions. She also questioned the

integrity of the witnesses. The panel found these collective features to be disappointing.”

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 displayed at allegations 2.

and 4. would likely have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher,

potentially damaging the public perception.”

I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty 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 the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a

failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to

13

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 Mrs Johnson. The panel

report “the previous good standing of Mrs Johnson, as cited in the two previous

OFSTED inspections of the School and the positive character references put forward on

her behalf.”

A prohibition order would prevent Mrs Johnson from teaching and would also clearly

deprive the public of her contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.

In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the

fact that this conduct was at the less serious end in part because, there was “ no long

term adverse impact on the pupil's well-being. Mrs Johnson did in fact seek first aid

immediately after the incident and did speak to one of Pupil A's parents. These factors

reduce the seriousness of the dishonesty that occurred.”

For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate and in

the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order.

I consider that the published findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct

that may bring the profession into disrepute is sufficient to conclude this case.

Decision maker: Alan Meyrick

Date: 9 November 2018

This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of

State.