APPENDIX C
Case Studies
CASE STUDY
(I)
An allegation was made against an NASUWT member
that he physically assaulted a Year 9 male pupil on 19 March 2007.
The member was interviewed by the police on 4 April 2007. On 19
April 2007, the Union's solicitors confirmed that the police would
be taking no further action against the member. The member was
not charged or cautioned with any offence. The Union subsequently
discovered that two employees of Bradford Social Services had
visited the member at his home on the day he was informed of the
allegation. The member says they treated him like a criminal and
were very intimidating. They informed him they were investigating
his family situation under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989.
The same social workers subsequently visited the member again
the following day and allegedly pressurised him and his partner
to sign a formal document confirming their agreement:
— not to physically chastise their
son;
— to report any injury to their son
to the Social Services duty worker;
— to co-operate with Social Services
and other agencies involved; and
— to Social Services undertaking an
assessment.
The member pursued a formal complaint against
Social Services.
CASE STUDY
(II)
An NASUWT member teaching in a primary school
in London was placed on gardening leave in June 2008 following
allegations of child abuse from a parent. The member's headteacher
and senior management team were fully supportive of him, as the
allegations had come from parents who had made allegations against
male primary school teachers before and seemed intent on preventing
any males from teaching their children. The member is also a foster
parent and a carer for his disabled wife. The allegations were
referred to Social Services who instructed him that he was not
to sleep overnight at his family home, which caused him and his
family emotional trauma as well as practical difficulties. In
addition, he was summonsed to an interview with Social Services.
The case was reported in the press, which caused the member further
distress. After approximately three weeks, the headteacher confirmed
to parents that the police and Social Services had found no evidence
to substantiate the complaints and that the case had been closed.
Social Services' restrictions on the member were lifted and he
returned to work. However, the member remained traumatised by
the events and seriously considered leaving teaching.
CASE STUDY
(III)
A female pupil made allegations against an NASUWT
member teaching in a secondary school in North Yorkshire on 11
January 2008. The member was suspended on 15 January 2008 without
being told what the allegations against him were. The police interviewed
the pupil but not the member and, on 21 January 2008, confirmed
to the school that they would be taking no action. The school
therefore instigated its own disciplinary investigation.
The member attended his first investigatory interview
on 24 January 2008 but at this point, he was still not informed
of the nature of the allegations. On 29 January, the employer
wrote to the member informing him of the detail of the allegations.
The pupil was not interviewed until 7 and 14 March 2008, some
two months after the allegations were made. Nine other pupils
and another teacher were interviewed over April, May and June.
It was clear from the pupils' responses that there had been considerable
discussion amongst Year 11 pupils about the allegations. In addition,
a number of the pupils made reference to the headteacher questioning
them about the member prior to their interview, although no notes
of these conversations were ever disclosed or referred to during
the disciplinary investigation and hearing.
On 29 June 2008, the pupil who made the original
allegation came forward with a further allegation about an incident
she alleged occurred in Summer 2007. The member was interviewed
on three more occasions, but these meetings were described as
"pre-disciplinary interviews"', which did not exist
under the school's disciplinary procedure and suggested to the
member and his Union representative that an assumption of guilt
had already been made by the investigators.
It was also clear that the employer did not seek
to investigate all avenues in order to seek the truth about the
allegations, as 22 additional potential witnesses (mostly suggested
by the member, but some named by the pupils interviewed) were
not questioned. The investigation amounted to a trawling exercise
to find damning evidence and elicit more allegations. It failed
to explore potential evidence that could have proved the teacher's
version of events. These concerns were raised by the NASUWT at
the beginning of the disciplinary hearing before a panel of governors.
As a result, the panel acknowledged there were problems with the
investigation and procedure. The panel decided that the overarching
allegation of "inappropriate behaviour of a sexual nature"
was not evidenced, although the member was issued with a final
written warning in relation to four less serious allegations.
CASE STUDY
(IV)
An NASUWT member was working as a supply teacher
through an agency at a secondary school in Lancashire. On 8 November
2007, the member was suspended for allegedly having an inappropriate
relationship with a female looked after pupil. The pupil fell
under the jurisdiction of Blackpool Council. However, the teacher
was investigated under the procedures of Lancashire County Council.
At a Section 47 strategy meeting on 15 November 2007, concerns
were raised about the relationship between the teacher and the
pupil. Social Services and the police visited the teacher at home
and her ongoing suspension was confirmed. At a second strategy
meeting on 3 December 2007, it was decided that further investigation
was necessary. The member's agency informed the member she would
not be considered for further employment whilst the investigation
was ongoing. To date (11 May 2009), no formal conclusion to the
investigation has been reached by Lancashire County Council or
Blackpool Social Services. No formal investigatory interview with
the member has ever taken place in contradiction of Lancashire
County Council's Child Safeguarding Procedures. On 16 July 2008,
a report was received from Blackpool Social Services, but this
reached no conclusion and stated no outcomes. In a letter dated
January 2009, the County Council appeared to be retrospectively
pushing responsibility to investigate onto the teaching agency
in their capacity as "employer". The agency finally
held a "Disciplinary Investigation Meeting" on 16 September
2008 (some 10 months after the allegation was made). The investigation
found that the teacher's conduct was "inappropriate"
and that the member's relationship with the pupil in question
"went beyond the professional boundaries of a teacher".
However, no disciplinary action was to be taken against the teacher,
but before she could be considered for further placements, the
member was required to undertake child protection training. This
training was finally scheduled to take place in March 2009. The
member attended the venue for training as scheduled but on arrival
was told that no training was required and that she would simply
have to go through the induction notes given to new teachers.
To date, the member has not received the induction notes. The
member has had to re-register with the agency but has still not
yet been given any teaching placements.
CASE STUDY
(V)
An allegation was made at the end of the Spring
2007 term against a student member of the NASUWT who was undertaking
teaching practice in a school in the Yorkshire and Humberside
Region. The school did not investigate the allegation, but refused
to allow the student to continue his placement there. The member
was due to qualify in Summer 2007 and had a job offer to commence
in September—he was therefore at risk of losing this job
if he was not able to finish his teaching practice. The NASUWT
Regional Official wrote to the school, the University and the
two Child Protection teams involved requesting that the allegation
be investigated in order to resolve the matter. (The police were
informed but declined to investigate as they felt no criminal
offence had been committed.) A consensus was eventually reached
that the University should investigate. The University finally
confirmed it had investigated and was satisfied that the member
was suitable to work with children, and stated that he should
be supported in order to complete his teacher training. The only
point outstanding then was whether the member could start at the
school where he had obtained a job from September. The school
was supportive and prepared to allow him to complete his final
teaching practice there but the local authority had reservations.
The member did, however, start work at the school as an unqualified
teacher in order to complete his final teaching practice.
CASE STUDY
(VI)
In March 2006, the NASUWT secured a settlement
from the police following the unlawful detention of a member at
a police station. The supply teacher member from the West Midlands
was accused of assaulting a pupil and was taken to her local police
station for questioning. She was arrested and questioned, following
which a "no further action" decision was taken. At this
point, the member should have been released, but she was detained
and her photographs, DNA and fingerprints taken. The NASUWT submitted
a judicial review application against the police decision to detain
her and was given leave to proceed by the Court. The police then
conceded the claim in full, agreeing to destroy the records and
they paid, to the member, a token amount of compensation.
CASE STUDY
(VII)
An NASUWT member voluntarily attended Washington
police station in May 2008 where, despite protests from his solicitor,
he was arrested over allegations of common assault against a school
pupil. He was later cleared of any wrongdoing. As part of the
arrest process, the police took DNA samples, a photograph and
fingerprints. By law, police can keep these records irrespective
of the outcome of the arrest. The Police National Computer (PNC)
had also been marked with "CJ arrestee", which would
lead to disclosure to any prospective employer carrying out the
obligatory enhanced Criminal Records Bureau Check. The NASUWT
challenged the legality of the member's arrest and sought destruction
of his personal records. The High Court granted permission for
a judicial review, but on 1 May 2009, a few days before the full
hearing, the police conceded, agreeing to a Consent Order declaring
the arrest unlawful. An order was made that the photographic,
fingerprint and DNA records be deleted and the PNC was amended.
This climbdown has implications throughout the public sector and
will significantly change the way teachers who are accused of
assault are dealt with by the police. The decision implies that
police should be better trained to apply provisions of the Police
and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) when dealing with teachers
and other public servants. Regrettably, the member has now left
the teaching profession after 15 years' service because of the
trauma caused by this ordeal.
CASE STUDY
(VIII)
An allegation was made against an NASUWT member
in Flintshire on 15 February 2007 that he held a penknife to a
female pupil's throat and threatened to kill her. The Union's
solicitors were instructed to represent the member. On 6 March
2007, the Union's solicitors confirmed that the police would be
taking no further action against the member. They subsequently
provided a copy of an e-mail from the investigating police officer,
which unusually confirmed that the investigation had revealed
the allegation was completely made up. The member had not even
been interviewed by the police. On the Union's solicitors' advice,
the member then lodged a formal complaint against the pupil to
the police. The Union was advised that the pupil had been cautioned
for "making false witness". The police subsequently
confirmed in writing that the pupil "was arrested and formally
reprimanded for her actions". As far as the Union is aware,
no disciplinary action has been taken against the pupil by the
school.
|
|
