Mrs Annette Meier: Professional conduct panel outcome

Mrs Annette Meier: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

July 2018

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 4

C. Preliminary applications 4

D. Summary of evidence 6

Documents 6

Witnesses 7

E. Decision and reasons 7

Findings of fact 8

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

profession into disrepute 21

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 22

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mrs Annette Meier

TRA reference: 15185

Date of determination: 27 July 2018

Former employer: Manor Green School, Maidenhead ('the School')

A. Introduction

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

TRA”) convened on 13 July 2018 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1

3BH to consider the case of Mrs Annette Meier.

The panel members were Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Sathi Ariya

(lay panellist) and Mr Phillip Riggon (teacher panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP.

The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Samantha Paxman of Browne Jacobson LLP.

Mrs Meier was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of Counsel.

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 15 May

2018.

It was alleged that Mrs Annette Meier was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct

and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that she:

1. Failed to adequately undertake her duties as a Designated Person for

safeguarding in that she on one or more occasions:

a. failed to act upon safeguarding concerns raised by staff;

b. failed to share safeguarding concerns in a timely manner with other

agencies and/or organisations and/or parents;

c. failed to store safeguarding concerns safely and confidentially;

d. failed to maintain accurate child protection/safeguarding records.

2. Failed to observe school policy and / or leadership instruction in relation to 1

above;

3. In doing so 1 above, she failed to protect pupil(s) from the risk of potential harm;

4. In doing so 1 above, she failed to observe legislative requirements.

Mrs Meier admitted all of the allegations, albeit not each of the examples provided by the

TRA to substantiate the allegations. Those examples that did not have an unequivocal

admission were treated as denied.

Mrs Meier also admitted, to the extent of the admissions referred to above, that her

conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring

the profession into disrepute.

C. Preliminary applications

The panel considered an application dated 12 July 2018 from Mr Storey that today's

hearing be adjourned to allow Mrs Meier to fully prepare her case. It was explained that

through no fault of his client, no witness statement had been obtained from her nor from

ten potential witnesses. Whilst these witnesses had been contacted by Mrs Meier and

had indicated their willingness to give a witness statement, that was the extent of the

preparation to date. No contact had been made with these witnesses by Mrs Meier's

solicitors.

Mr Storey stated that the allegations faced by his client, whilst low in number, were

supported by a considerable volume of documents and substantial cross-referencing was

5

required for the case to be properly understood. More time was needed for these to be

adequately reviewed and instructions taken.

Without an adjournment, Mrs Meier's position was that she would be unable to properly

formulate her defence, causing inevitable unfairness to the proceedings, which were said

to have the potential to cause a catastrophic impact on her career.

Ms Paxman, on behalf of the TRA, opposed the application. She set out the history of

this matter, including the two previous adjournment applications from Mrs Meier, which

had caused it to be significantly delayed. The TRA's case had not altered in a significant

manner for nearly a year meaning Mrs Meier had had more than sufficient opportunity to

prepare her case.

Case preparation by the defence was explicitly referred to at the last CMH, when Mrs

Meier was legally represented. For whatever reason, she had failed to prepare her case

and had not complied with the directed deadlines for any future adjournment application.

Further, in the absence of either any corroborating evidence as to the relevance of

witnesses or documents referred to by the defence, or evidence of any attempts made to

contact them or obtain the documents, insufficient reasoning to allow the adjournment

had been given.

Ms Paxman also raised the prejudice that the TRA may suffer were an adjournment to be

granted. Witnesses' memories inevitably fade over time and, to the extent that evidence

may lack clarity, this should properly be determined in Mrs Meier's, not the TRA's, favour.

The TRA would be calling five witnesses, for each of whom this would be the third

hearing date. All were becoming concerned as to the length of time this case was taking

to conclude. In the event of an adjournment, live evidence from two witnesses would be

problematic and potentially impossible due to emigration from the UK to New Zealand or

imminent birth.

In the panel's view, the application on behalf of Mrs Meier is substantially lacking in detail

to create an impression that there would be unfairness to her by not adjourning

proceedings. No material has been provided as to who the possible ten witnesses are,

their specific roles nor what evidence they may provide and the efforts made to engage

them in the process. The information provided regarding the potential documents to be

used as evidence by Mrs Meier is equally silent.

From the updated Schedule of Evidence provided by the TRA, instructions have clearly

been given by Mrs Meier to allow her legal representatives to confirm her admissions or

denials to a number of allegations. The panel is disappointed that, despite this, no

witness statement has been provided by her.

Nevertheless, even were Mrs Meier not to provide a witness statement, she would still be

afforded the opportunity to present her evidence and position on matters from the witness

box.

6

The panel appreciates that this matter had some history and that this was the third

adjournment application on Mrs Meier's behalf. In the light of the reasons for the previous

adjournment requests, the panel does not hold those applications against her nor

consider this current application to be an attempt to frustrate the process. However, the

panel does note that each CMH decision made specific references to the need for Mrs

Meier's case requiring preparation. She has been provided with ample opportunity to at

least indicate any defences that she may wish to advance but has not done so.

Fairness and the interest of justice apply to both parties and, in the panel's view, the TRA

had been more than accommodating to Mrs Meier and is likely to suffer avoidable

prejudice, were the hearing to be adjourned, by the absence of two witnesses at a future

time.

Taking all of these factors into account, especially the lack of detail surrounding the

witnesses and documents, the panel does not consider that Mrs Meier would suffer any

particular unfairness in the hearing proceeding and therefore refuses the application to

adjourn.

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, Schedule of Evidence and CMH decision – pages 6 to

26

Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 28 to 49

Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 51 to 820

In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:

A witness statement from Mrs Meier;

A witness statement from Witness F; and

Character References on behalf of Mrs Meier.

These additional documents formed a separate bundle paginated from page 1 to page

128.

In addition, the panel accepted an updated Schedule of Evidence from Ms Paxman.

7

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

hearing.

Witnesses

The panel heard oral evidence from:

Witness A, [Redacted];

Witness B, for [Redacted];

Witness C, [Redacted];

Witness D, [Redacted].

Witness E, [Redacted];

Annette Meier; and

Witness F, [Redacted].

E. Decision and reasons

The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:

The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision.

The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance

of the hearing and at the hearing itself.

Mrs Meier had been employed at Manor Green School as a teacher from September

2001 and, since September 2005, as an Assistant Head Teacher in the Primary

Department. Part of Mrs Meier's role as Assistant Head Teacher was that of Designated

Teacher for Child Protection ('DTCP') for the Primary School.

On 12 June 2015, a whistleblowing complaint was made against Mrs Meier regarding an

alleged failure in her duties involving a pupil safeguarding issue. As a result of this, Mrs

Meier was immediately suspended and was witnessed by the Headteacher attempting to

take safeguarding material relating to specific pupils out of the school.

Subsequent to this complaint, an investigation was undertaken by the school regarding

Mrs Meier that led to further concerns involving safeguarding being raised. Mrs Meier left

the school's employment in November 2015.

8

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. Failed to adequately undertake your duties as a Designated Person for

safeguarding in that you on one or more occasions:

a. failed to act upon safeguarding concerns raised by staff

Whilst this allegation was not particularised, the TRA's Schedule of Evidence confirmed

that this related to pupils A, D, E, G, H and I.

Pupil A

Witness E gave live evidence regarding this pupil and confirmed that, during the early

afternoon 22 May 2015, Pupil A disclosed to her that he had recently been punched by

his father. This disclosure was made just prior to the afternoon assembly on the final day

before the half-term break.

Witness E stated that in line with the School's safeguarding policy, she immediately

reported this disclosure to her line-manager, Individual A, and saw Individual A approach

Mrs Meier and speak to her.

Whilst Witness E did not hear the content of this 'brief' conversation between Mrs Meier

and Individual A, she stated in evidence that she later went to Mrs Meier's office to hand

in a sick-note and Mrs Meier said that 'the matter' would be dealt with after half-term.

Witness E recalled Mrs Meier making some comment along the lines of 'has someone

checked the boy' but nothing further, which shocked her in the light of the disclosure

made to Individual A and the imminent half-term break. Nevertheless, Witness E

accepted that she herself had not reported any details of the disclosure to Mrs Meier at

that time nor told her that she was alarmed.

After half-term, Witness E expected Mrs Meier to approach her to ask for the necessary

safeguarding form to be completed but this did not happen. She was aware of the need

for this form to be completed but, being relatively new to the School, did not know where

they were kept. Witness E raised her ongoing concerns with Individual A who, she said,

told her that Mrs Meier was dealing with the matter and would provide her with the form.

Around this time, Witness E decided to keep a chronology of events (page 803 of the

bundle) regarding this incident that was updated as needed.

Witness E' concerns as to the lack of action culminated in her calling Witness D, then the

Assistant Head Teacher, at the weekend for advice as to how to proceed. The two met

9

for a brief conversation on Saturday and Witness D suggested speaking to another

member of staff.

Witness E stated that on 8 June 2015, she had a conversation with Witness A, Pupil A's

class-teacher, regarding the incident and Witness A provided her with the safeguarding

form to complete. Witness E was unable to be any more specific as to the details of

Witness A 's specific knowledge of the disclosure although she appeared to be aware of

a concern having been raised.

On 9 June 2015, Witness E said that she handed the completed safeguarding form to

Mrs Meier. Witness E was adamant that this exchange had taken place and was clear in

her mind that there was no confusion on this point.

The panel also heard live evidence from Witness C, who could only provide limited

assistance on this pupil's incident. She confirmed that on the weekend of 6/7 June 2015,

she had been telephoned by Witness E and the two had met outside of the School.

During this meeting, Witness E had said that she felt uncomfortable with the lack of

action being taken in respect of Pupil A despite Mrs Meier being aware of it from before

half-term. Witness D had advised Witness E to speak to someone more appropriate at

School, it having been previously suggested to Witness D that she needed to spend less

time dealing with safeguarding matters due to her new role in the School.

Witness A, Pupil A's class teacher, also gave live evidence to the panel. She stated that

in the week after half-term, Pupil A began wetting himself at School. Whilst such an

occurrence had happened before with that pupil, it began happening more regularly in

that week. Witness A confirmed that she mentioned this to Mrs Meier but did not recall

speaking to her regarding the 'punching disclosure', nor could she clearly remember

when she had been made aware.

Witness A also stated that she had provided the safeguarding form to Witness E on 8

June 2015 and, the next day, Witness E told her that she had handed in the form to Mrs

Meier.

Mrs Meier gave evidence on her own behalf regarding the incident. She was clear that at

no time had she been made aware of the specifics of the disclosure and, as a person

experienced in safeguarding, would have acted upon the verbal concerns and

safeguarding form were it to have been given to her by Witness E . Mrs Meier was

adamant that no form had been given to her and only recalls seeing it for the first time

during an interview with Witness C, the lead investigator and, even then, the form was

not produced for approximately two hours.

In addition to the live evidence, the panel was also assisted by the 'Concerns about [Pupil

A] Disclosure' document prepared nearer the time of the incident by Witness E , which

provided some useful corroborative evidence regarding the matter. Nevertheless, as

10

Witness E gave live evidence on this matter, the panel gave the document only limited

weight.

All of the witnesses gave evidence in a clear and credible manner. In light of the lack of

direct, live evidence from Individual A, and the lack of clarity as to what exactly Mrs Meier

had been told by her, the panel was, on balance, not convinced that Mrs Meier had been

made aware of the details of the disclosure on 22 May 2015 nor in the week after half –

term.

However, the panel did consider that the safeguarding form had been completed by

Witness E on (or around) 8 June 2015 and handed to Mrs Meier the next day. Whilst

Witness E and Mrs Meier gave equally strong and compelling evidence on this point, the

panel's view was that the actions taken by Witness E in contacting Witness D followed by

the corroborative account of events provided by Witness A, was sufficient, on balance, to

determine that the form had been handed to Mrs Meier on 9 June 2015 and she had

failed to act on it before her suspension on 12 June 2015.

An allegation of a child being punched by their father is clearly a safeguarding issue and,

on this basis, the panel finds the allegation proved for Pupil A.

Pupil D

Mrs Meier denied failing to take any action in respect of this particular safeguarding

concern that involved friction burns being seen on a child who was classed as a Child in

Need.

The panel had sight of the safeguarding form at page 444 and heard live evidence on this

matter from Witness D who explained that when a decision had been made to suspend

Mrs Meier on 12 June 2015, she, along with Individual B, the head-teacher, went to Mrs

Meier's office to escort her off the premises. After that had taken place, this safeguarding

form was found by Witness D and Individual B in a sealed envelope, which was opened

by Individual B. They then both signed and dated the rear of the envelope to confirm

what they had done. Witness D was clear in her evidence that the envelope containing

the form had been properly sealed and it was not the case that it may have been re-

sealed after having been opened.

Mrs Meier gave live evidence on this matter. She was relatively confident that she had

opened the envelope containing the form and that Pupil D's class teacher had confirmed

that she had spoken to Pupil D's mother who confirmed that the friction burn had been

caused whilst her son was in an anxious state. Mrs Meier stated that this explanation was

consistent with previous episodes involving the pupil and, in light of the explanation

provided by the pupil's mother, and her previous knowledge of the pupil, Mrs Meier did

not consider it necessary for any referral to be made.

The panel has adopted a strict interpretation of the wording of the allegation. Whilst

making no comment on the action taken by Mrs Meier, she had not 'failed to act' on

11

safeguarding concerns as she had discussed matters with Individual C and determined

there was no need to refer the matter on. The panel also accepts that there are

occasions when an envelope can be opened but resealed and have the appearance on

being unopened. In the panel's opinion, Witness D and Individual B are to be

commended for the care they took to confirm the position but, without viewing the original

envelope, the panel could not exclude Mrs Meier's version of events that she had opened

the envelope and seen the form.

On this basis, the panel does not consider this allegation proved.

Pupil E

Mrs Meier admitted this allegation and the panel had sight of Pupil E's Safeguarding

Record at page 533 that stated he attended at School with his bag smelling of cannabis.

This was in the context of his parents being previous drug users.

On the basis of Mrs Meier's admission and the Safeguarding Record, the panel finds this

allegation proved.

Pupil G

This concern related to a young pupil on the Child Protection register who attended

School with scratches on his back in April 2015 as reported to Mrs Meier.

Witness A, Pupil G's class-teacher, confirmed in live evidence that she recalled some

marks on the pupil's back but could not recall any safeguarding forms. She explained that

she would attend the pupil's Core Group Meetings approximately every three months with

his mother, with whom she was not in regular contact, partly as the mother did not speak

particularly good English.

Mrs Meier explained that she had exercised her judgement as to whether any action was

required. It had been reported to her by the pupil's class team that Pupil G's mother had

been spoken to and the scratches had been caused by nothing more than some 'rough

and tumble' between the pupil and his siblings. She also stated that Witness A was in

regular contact with the pupil's mother and social worker, including attending core group

meetings regarding his welfare, so was well placed to report any concerns.

Whilst there was a discrepancy between Witness A and Mrs Meier regarding the amount

of contact with Pupil G's mother, in light of the fact that Mrs Meier had taken some action

on this matter, on the panel's interpretation of the wording of the allegation, the panel

does not find this proved.

Pupil H

Mrs Meier admitted this allegation, which related to a secondary school pupil receiving a

black-eye and asking staff to keep a 'secret' regarding the injury.

12

Witness D confirmed that she and Mrs Meier would deputise for one another when one

was away from School. Mrs Meier confirmed that the concern had been reported to her

but, due to not having the correct access, was unable to review any previous concerns

regarding the pupil. She instead discussed the concern with senior staff in the secondary

department who did know the pupil and was reassured that no referral was necessary.

Despite the admission, considering some action was taken by Mrs Meier, the panel did

not find this allegation proved.

Pupil I

Mrs Meier accepted this allegation, which involved possible sexualised behaviour by a 6

year old pupil who had previously suffered sexual abuse.

Mrs Meier was aware of these concerns from March to May 2015 and consulted with

colleagues. Mrs Meier determined that the behaviour was historic in nature and did not

amount to current safeguarding concerns. She was also aware that, for separate

reasons, social services were involved and she was suitably reassured by this.

Whilst the panel had concerns on Mrs Meier's reasoning for her actions, the panel does

accept that some action was taken in consulting colleagues and therefore finds this

allegation not proved.

b. failed to share safeguarding concerns in a timely manner with other

agencies and/or organisations and/or parents


that this related to pupils A, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, N and O.

Pupil A

For the reasons given above, the panel has determined that Mrs Meier was aware of the

disclosure involving Pupil A on 9 June 2015.

The panel heard live evidence from Witness B as to what Mrs Meier should have done

having been made aware of the incident. Witness B gave evidence in a clear, measured

and articulate manner. He was willing to accept when judgement could be properly used

by a Designated Person and when the sharing of safeguarding matters, in his opinion,

was absolutely required. In relation to Pupil A, Witness B confirmed that the pupil was

under a Child Protection Plan ('CPP') and there was no discretion as to whether social

services should have been informed.

Witness C gave live evidence in a clear, concise manner and confirmed that this concern

had not been referred to any agency or organisation.

The panel was clear that this was a safeguarding matter that needed to be shared with

the Social Services. This should have been done as a matter of urgency upon Mrs Meier

13

becoming aware but was not. As a result, the panel finds this allegation in respect of

Pupil A proved.

Pupil C

The concerns in respect of this five-year old pupil were taken from the School's

Safeguarding Record (page 383), in relation to the pupil pushing his groin into a member

of staff and saying "Rosie I'm riding you". The record also stated that on 2 June 2015,

Pupil C's class teacher called the pupil's parents who themselves reported, during the

call, that there had been previous incidents of sexualised behaviour from their son. The

class teacher was stated to have explained to the parents what action they should take

should the behaviour reoccur.

Witness C gave evidence and confirmed that this concern had not been referred on to

another agency or organisation.

Witness B stated that, although an investigation by social services may not lead to any

further action, this concern was sufficiently serious to have been reported and therefore

an investigation should have taken place.

In evidence, Mrs Meier explained that she had taken action when informed of the

concern by the class-teacher and had been reassured by the actions taken. Mrs Meier

stated that Pupil C was autistic and this type of behaviour was typical for autistic boys of

his age and did not, therefore, amount to a safeguarding matter that required sharing with

outside agencies.

Mrs Meier was further reassured in a meeting with Pupil C's parents in the week after the

incident that any concern was being addressed through cooperation with his parents and

the School.

In the panel's view, a young child displaying sexualised behaviour must be regarded as a

safeguarding concern that requires investigation, even if the conclusion is that no action

is to be taken. Whilst the panel accepts that Mrs Meier may have made her judgement in

good faith, the panel is also of the view that it was the incorrect judgement and the

concern should have been reported to social services. On that basis, the panel finds this

allegation proved.

Pupil D

The panel heard live evidence from Witness B who explained that as Pupil D was

recorded as being a Child in Need ('CIN'), there would have been an expectation that the

concern would have been shared with social services.

Mrs Meier initially denied this allegation. However, she heard the evidence from Witness

B that the exercise of judgement involved in determining whether a CIN concern should

14

be referred was limited. Mrs Meier subsequently admitted this allegation during the

course of the hearing.

As a result of Witness B’s evidence and Mrs Meier's admission, the panel finds this

allegation proved.

Pupil E

For the same reasons given by the panel for Pupil E in relation to allegation 1a, the panel

finds this allegation proved.

Pupil F

Mrs Meier initially denied this allegation, which involved a young child exhibiting

sexualised behaviour on two occasions. Pupil F was, at the time, subject to a Team

Around the Child ('TAC').

Witness B gave evidence as to whether he would have expected a referral to have been

made to social services and confirmed, by reference to the TAC, that would be the case.

Mrs Meier subsequently admitted the allegation. In light of the admission and Witness B's

evidence, the panel finds this allegation proved.

Pupil G

Mrs Meier initially denied this allegation.

Witness C confirmed that this matter had not been referred on to any other agency and

Witness B confirmed that as Pupil G was on a Child Protection Plan ('CPP'), it was

important that all relevant agencies were made aware of the concerns to ensure no

pattern was appearing.

Having heard the relevant evidence and understanding the requirement for referring

particular concerns when a CPP is involved, Mrs Meier subsequently admitted the

allegation during the hearing. Because of this and the evidence from Witness C and

Witness B, the panel finds this allegation proved.

Pupil H

Mrs Meier admitted this allegation.

Witness C confirmed that no referral onto another agency had been made in respect of

the concern regarding the Pupil's black-eye and the panel noted that in the safeguarding

concerns, there were previous concerns regarding domestic abuse.

Mrs Meier subsequently accepted that she should have made efforts to consider the

electronic records and was concerned at upsetting the pupil.

15

In the panel's view, because of the history of the pupil and her wish to keep the matter

'secret', this was clearly a case that required a referral to social services for further

investigation and therefore finds this allegation proved.

Pupil I

The background to this allegation is stated for the relevant pupil in allegation 1a. Mrs

Meier admitted this allegation.

Witness C confirmed that this concern had not been referred on to any other agency or

organisation. In the panel's view, the concerns raised clearly needed to be referred. The

panel does not accept Mrs Meier's initial reasoning as to why no referral was made.

On this basis, the panel finds this allegation proved.

Pupil N

Mrs Meier denied this allegation.

Witness D explained in evidence that, following Mrs Meier's suspension, safeguarding

forms regarding Pupil N were found in her locked filing cabinet. Pupil N had moved from

the School to a different establishment in 2011 (albeit coming off the School's roll in

2012) and that all papers should have been sent on to there.

Mrs Meier stated that whilst she recalled the pupil, she also recalled another member of

staff, Individual D, sending on all the original papers to the new school. Any papers left in

her filing cabinet will have been photocopies.

The panel noted at page 502, an email from Individual D to Witness D on 25 June 2015

that stated the pupil had left the School on 23 March 2012 and the records had been sent

on to the new school.

The panel did not see any suggestion from Pupil N's new school that documents were

missing from the folder sent to them. In the absence of any evidence to suggest the

records found were original documents, rather than photocopies, on balance, the panel

does not find this allegation proved.

Pupil O


The panel was directed to correspondence to Witness D dated 29 June 2015 from a

Social Worker at St Helens Council. This correspondence set out a chronology of contact

made with Mrs Meier, specifically in relation to a meeting between the two of them on 14

January 2015, which was intended to assist Pupil O in returning to education. At this

meeting, it was stated that Mrs Meier was asked for, and agreed to give, weekly updates

on the pupil or, if sooner, when an incident took place.

16

The letter did state when the updates were provided by Mrs Meier but that these were

only when she was chased and were not weekly. The letter also makes reference to a

scratch sustained by Pupil O whilst at School but not reported to the Social Worker.

Mrs Meier explained in her witness statement that whilst she thought weekly updates

were unnecessary, she agreed that that "[she] would do what [she] could". The scratch

was from a playground incident, rather than any safeguarding concern, and there was no

need to inform the Social Worker.

In the panel's view, Pupil O appeared vulnerable and other agencies would have

benefited from having a more complete picture of his progress. On this basis, the panel is

satisfied that the TRA has provided sufficient evidence and therefore finds this allegation

proved.

c. failed to store safeguarding concerns safely and confidentially


that this related to pupils A, D, F and G.

Pupil A

This allegation was admitted by Mrs Meier.

Witness D gave evidence generally on the changes that she made to the safeguarding

system, by moving away from solely paper based recording to a system that was

primarily electronic, on which a summary of each concern needed to be recorded, albeit

with some paper records also being retained. Access to this system was only approved

for 'Level Two' staff who had completed the appropriate training and was controlled by

staff-specific log-in details.

Mrs Meier accepted that she had provided her log-in details and password to Witness A,

who was not Level Two approved, to allow her to update the electronic records for Pupil

A. This access would have allowed Witness A access to records relating to Pupil A that

should have remained confidential to Mrs Meier (or another authorised person).

On the basis of the admission and there being no material to contradict this, the panel


Pupil D

The facts behind this allegation have been set at the relevant part of allegation 1a.

In the panel's view, the only evidence that the TRA has presented on this matter was that

the envelope (sealed or otherwise) was on Mrs Meier's desk, in her office, when she was

present before being escorted off the School premises. The panel did not consider this to

be storing the document in an unsecure manner nor failing to keep it confidential and

does not therefore find this allegation proved.

17

Pupil F


Witness D's witness statement stated that Individual B had informed her that when

escorting Mrs Meier from the School premises, she had also taken a bag of papers from

Mrs Meier that she had been carrying, which included safeguarding forms regarding this

pupil.

Mrs Meier accepted this in her evidence and stated that she had been flustered when

suspended so grabbed an armful of paperwork from her desk, both professional and

personal, before being escorted from the School.

In the panel's view, whilst the forms being in a bag may have led in due course to there

being concerns regarding security and confidentiality, there was no evidence that before

Mrs Meier's suspension they were not stored securely or confidentially (Mrs Meier having

been in the office) and were then temporarily in Mrs Meier's possession (and control)

when she held the bag.

On that basis, despite the admission, the panel does not find this allegation proved.

Pupil G

Mrs Meier admitted this allegation as she had allowed Witness Ato update the pupil's

records on the electronic system using her log-in and password. For the reasons

previously given for Pupil A, the panel finds this allegation proved.

d. failed to maintain accurate child protection/safeguarding records.


that this related to pupils A, B, C, E, F, G, I and N.

Pupil A

The TRA stated in the Schedule of Evidence that this concern was put on the basis of

Witness A completing the electronic log regarding Pupil A. However, in the absence of

any evidence being produced by the TRA to suggest the records inputted by Witness A

were inaccurate, the panel does not find this part of the allegation proved.

Pupil B

This particular part of the allegation was admitted by Mrs Meier on the basis that she

again allowed Witness A to update Pupil B's electronic records using her log-in details

and password. The panel noted from the TRA's Schedule of Evidence that this allegation

was also made on the basis that Mrs Meier had failed to consider Witness A's report on

this pupil prior to a safeguarding conference.

18

Despite the admission from Mrs Meier, the panel did not consider that the TRA had

provided evidence to show any inaccuracy in the records regarding Pupil B. On that

basis, the panel does not find this allegation proved.

Pupil C


The panel was directed to the Safeguarding Record of Pupil C at page 383, which stated

that the incident on 1 June 2015 was recorded on 15 June 2015 and the content of the

telephone call with Pupil C's parents on 2 June 2015 was recorded on 17 June 2015.

On the basis of the admission and the documentary evidence stating the relevant

concerns were not recorded for two weeks after occurring, the panel finds this allegation

proved.

Pupil E


The panel was directed to the safeguarding forms regarding Pupil E at pages 539 and

540 that were not recorded appropriately. On the basis of the admission and the absence

of the safeguarding detail on the electronic forms, the panel finds the allegation proved.

Pupil F


The panel was directed to the electronic record at page 602 that stated the concerns of 7

May 2015 and 1 June 2015. Mrs Meier accepted being aware of these but they were not

recorded until 17 June 2015. On the basis of this record, and the admission, the panel


Pupil G


The panel had sight of the electronic Safeguarding Record, which did not include details

of the two safeguarding forms regarding the scratches on Pupil G's back. In light of this,

and the admission, the panel finds this allegation proved.

Pupil I


The panel reviewed the electronic Safeguarding Record and noted that the concerns

from March to May 2015. Mrs Meier accepted that she was aware of the concerns but

19

these were not recorded electronically by staff until after she was suspended. On this

basis, and the admission, the panel finds this allegation proved.

Pupil N


The panel was not presented with any evidence that a school has to maintain accurate

safeguarding records for ex-pupils. On this basis, in addition to the reasons given for

allegation 1b relevant to this pupil, the panel does not find this allegation proved.

2. Failed to observe school policy and / or leadership instruction in relation to 1

above

The panel's attention was directed to the School's 'Safeguarding Children Policy' at

pages 104 onwards, which was approved by the School's Governing Body in March

2012. This policy clearly sets out the responsibilities of the Designated Person at page

105, and teachers as a group, some of which were to ensure that:

concerns regarding a pupil's welfare, possible abuse or neglect are reported by

telephone;

records are kept confidential and secure, with a chronology of events to

accompany the same;

they liaise and work together with other support services and agencies that are

involved in the safeguarding of children.

In the panel's view, for each proven example within allegation 1, Mrs Meier had failed to

observe the Safeguarding Children Policy, which the panel also deemed to be a

leadership instruction from the Governing Body.

In addition, the panel considered the School's 'Guidelines for Electronic Safeguarding

Records' as drafted by Witness D. The panel had particular regard to two sentences:

"the confidential file is only accessible to named members of the safeguarding

team who have received the appropriate training"; and

the Safeguarding Record is a "document that should provide a running record of

all concerns and actions taken…this document is a key chronology for anyone

picking up a case they are unfamiliar with. It is vital that a brief outline is entered

on this record…to track the actions taken and have a really helpful overview."

In the light of the content referred to, the panel considered that these Guidelines had not

been followed in respect of allegations 1c and 1d.

The panel also accepted Mrs Meier's admission of this allegation. In consideration of this,

and the matters referred to above, the panel finds this allegation proved.

20

3. In so doing 1 above, you failed to protect pupil(s) from the risk of potential harm

In the panel's view, allegations 1a to 1d (and the proven examples within each) clearly

raise some concerns regarding there being an associated risk to pupils being potentially

exposed to harm. In light of this, and with consideration to Mrs Meier's admission to this

allegation, the panel finds this proved.

4. In so doing 1 above, you failed to observe legislative requirements.

The panel was directed to a number of legislative requirements within the bundle,

including 'Keeping Children Safe in Education' and 'HM Government Working Together to

Safeguard Children' documents starting at pages 113 and 126 respectively. From these,

the panel noted a number of requirements with which teachers had to comply including:

"Action should also be taken to promote the welfare of a child in need of additional

support, even if they are not suffering harm or are at immediate risk" (page 116);

"It is important for children to receive the right help at the right time to address

risks and prevent issues escalating. Research and Serious Case Reviews have

repeatedly shown the dangers of failing to take effective action. Poor practice

includes: failing to act on and refer the early signs of abuse and neglect, poor

record keeping…failing to reassess concerns when situations do not improve,

sharing information too slowly…" (page 118);

"the child's needs are paramount…all professionals who come into contact with

children and families are alert to the needs and any risks of harm that individual

abusers, or potential abusers may pose to children…all professionals share

appropriate information in a timely way and can discuss any concerns about an

individual child with colleagues and local authority children's social care" (page

134); and

"No single professional can have a full picture of a child's needs and

circumstances and, if children and families are to receive the right help at the right

time, everyone who comes into contact with them has a role to play in identifying

concerns, sharing information and taking prompt action" (page 135).

In the panel's view, it was clear that Mrs Meier had failed to comply with the necessary

legislative requirements. Having also noted that Mrs Meier admitted this allegation, the

panel finds this allegation proved.

21

Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that

may bring the profession into disrepute

Having found all of the allegations (albeit not each example) 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”.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Meier in relation to the facts found proven,

involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by reference to

Part Two, Mrs Meier 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 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.

For each of the allegations at 1 to 4, the panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mrs Meier

amounts to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards

expected of the profession. As the most senior safeguarding practitioner within the

primary department, the panel determined that her failings in this area, save for the pupil

examples referenced below, amounted to serious misconduct.

Whilst the panel considered the following examples to be misconduct, the panel also

determined that these were incidents when Mrs Meier had used her judgement, in good

faith, albeit incorrectly and did not amount to serious misconduct: Pupils D, G, H and O.

The panel has also considered whether Mrs Meier’s conduct displayed behaviours

associated with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice and the panel

has found that none of these offences to be relevant.

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.

22

For all of the reasons given, the panel does consider that Mrs Meier's conduct amounts

to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that brings 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 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.

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 protection of pupils;

the maintenance of public confidence in the profession;

declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct; and

the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession.

In light of the panel’s findings against Mrs Meier, which involved her failings in her role as

DTCP, there is a strong public interest consideration in ensuring that pupils are not

placed at any possible potential risk in the future.

Similarly, the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously

weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Meier was 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 Meier was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

Nevertheless, the panel also considered that there was a strong public interest

consideration in retaining Mrs Meier in the profession. Since Mrs Meier became a

teacher, she had dedicated her career to working with children with Special Educational

Needs ('SEN'). The panel also heard compelling live evidence from Witness D, Witness A

23

and Witness F as to her strengths as a teacher and the lengths she would go to to assist

pupils, colleagues and parents.

The panel also considered a number of extremely positive references in respect of Mrs

Meier. All of the references were from previous colleagues who attested to her abilities as

a teacher and some that the panel considered to be particularly pertinent were:

Individual E, Executive Headteacher at Haybrook College Trust, who described

Mrs Meier as "outstanding…passionate…cares enormously about the children…"

(page 63);

Individual F, a previous colleague of eight years, who said she was an

"outstanding teacher…her commitment to the well-being of the children has been

exemplary" (page 66);

Individual G, CEO of KWEST Multi Academy Trust stated "I have rarely come

across a person with the abilities, talents and commitments as demonstrated by

Annette and I would have no hesitation in appointing her as a senior leader in my

organisation." (page 71);

Individual H, previous Assistant Head Teacher at the School at the same time as

Mrs Meier and said that she was "truly outstanding and…always had the best

interests of all the young people we worked with at heart" (page 138).

From the references, the panel was left in no doubt Mrs Meier is able to continue to make

a valuable contribution to the profession.

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 Meier.

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

both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mrs Meier. 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;

misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or well-being of pupils, and

particularly where there is a continuing risk;

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

24

measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the

behaviour in this case.

In light of the panel’s findings there was no evidence that Mrs Meier’s actions were not

deliberate albeit that the panel's view was that Mrs Meier was always trying to act in the

best interests of the child.

There was no evidence to suggest that Mrs Meier was acting under duress.

Mrs Meier did have a previously good history and the panel accepts that the incident was

out of character, especially with consideration being given to the references previously

referred to.

The panel also had the benefit of Mrs Meier giving evidence for a considerable period of

time. Whilst the majority of this time was spent responding to the allegations, Mrs Meier

was also able to express her extreme remorse about the events at the School and

demonstrate her passion for teaching pupils with SEN. From the open manner in which

Mrs Meier gave evidence, the panel was convinced that her remorse and passion was

genuine and a reflection of her dedication to teaching.

The panel was also able to explore with Mrs Meier her insight into her failings. She

explained that the administrative side of her role was not her strength and her workload

had become unmanageable. Mrs Meier did not try to deflect the blame on this point onto

any other person and accepted (on a continuous basis throughout the hearing) her

failings.

Mrs Meier stated that in the time since she left the School, she had learnt to appreciate

that her true skill was dealing with pupils in the class and that the senior roles within a

school, which involved heavy administration, were not where she saw her career

progressing to any more, should no prohibition order be imposed. She did not, however,

rule out such a move in due course, and the panel felt this reflected Mrs Meier's attempts

to give honest answers rather than telling the panel what she thought the panel would

wish to hear.

Mrs Meier explained that the past three years had been a learning process and, having

recognised her shortcomings at the School, had improved her practice through self-

reflection to reduce the risk of any repetition of the concerns. Supportive references from

two schools were she had temporarily worked as a deputy headteacher (pages 81 and

83) corroborated Mrs Meier's account.

The panel first 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 considers that proven conduct regarding safeguarding failures is a serious

concern and would normally lead to a prohibition order. In this case however, the failings

25

arose from Mrs Meier's (albeit incorrect) approach in dealing with concerns and she

demonstrated some extremely considered insight into her actions and genuine remorse.

Of greater importance however, from the evidence that the panel heard and read, the

panel thought Mrs Meier to be a truly exceptional teacher, working in one of the most

stressful areas of education, who had failed only in part of her role and for a relatively

short period of time.

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. The

panel's view is that the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of

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

panel has determined that, in these exceptional circumstances, 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 Mrs Meier, as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable and

meets the public interest requirement of declaring the 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 no sanction.

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 all of the allegations (albeit not each example) to have

been proven and found that Mrs Meier’s conduct amounts to unacceptable professional

conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Where the panel did

not find facts proven I have put these matters from my mind. The panel has made a

recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mrs Meier should not be the subject of a

prohibition order.

In particular the panel has found that Mrs Meier 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 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.

26

The panel finds that the conduct of Mrs Meier 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

safe guard pupils.

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 Mrs Meier, and the impact that will have

on her, is proportionate.

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

children. The panel has observed, “ findings against Mrs Meier, which involved her

failings in her role as DTCP, there is a strong public interest consideration in ensuring

that pupils are not placed at any possible potential risk in the future.” 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, “Mrs

Meier was also able to express her extreme remorse about the events at the School and

demonstrate her passion for teaching pupils with SEN. From the open manner in which

Mrs Meier gave evidence, the panel was convinced that her remorse and passion was

genuine and a reflection of her dedication to teaching.” The panel has also commented

that Mrs Meier showed, “insight into her failings. She explained that the administrative

side of her role was not her strength and her workload had become unmanageable. Mrs

Meier did not try to deflect the blame on this point onto any other person and accepted

(on a continuous basis throughout the hearing) her failings.”. In my judgement the

demonstration of insight means that there is little risk of the repetition of this behaviour

and this mitigates against any future risk to pupil’s well being. 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, “public confidence in the profession

could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mrs Meier was not

treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am

particularly mindful of the finding of a failure to safeguard n 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

27

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 Mrs Meier herself. The panel

comment it, “ also considered that there was a strong public interest consideration in

retaining Mrs Meier in the profession. Since Mrs Meier became a teacher, she had

dedicated her career to working with children with Special Educational Needs ('SEN').

The panel also heard compelling live evidence from Witness D, Witness A and Witness F

as to her strengths as a teacher and the lengths she would go to to assist pupils,

colleagues and parents.”

A prohibition order would prevent Mrs Meier 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.

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

prohibition, “The panel considers that proven conduct regarding safeguarding failures is a

serious concern and would normally lead to a prohibition order. In this case however, the

failings arose from Mrs Meier's (albeit incorrect) approach in dealing with concerns and

she demonstrated some extremely considered insight into her actions and genuine

remorse.

Of greater importance however, from the evidence that the panel heard and read, the

panel thought Mrs Meier to be a truly exceptional teacher, working in one of the most

stressful areas of education, who had failed only in part of her role and for a relatively

short period of time.”

I have also placed considerable weight on the view of the panel, “that the nature and

severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the spectrum and, in light of the

mitigating factors that were present in this case, the panel has determined that, in these

exceptional circumstances, a recommendation for a prohibition order will not be

appropriate in this case.”

I have given weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mrs

Meier has made to the profession.

Whilst recognising the serious nature of the conduct found proven, taking into account

Mrs Meier’s previous good history, the panel’s view on mitigating factors present and the

remorse and insight shown I am of the same view as the panel. A published decision

backed up by the remorse and insight in this case is appropriate.

28

For these reasons I have concluded 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.

Decision maker: Dawn Dandy

Date: 01 August 2018

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

State.