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.