Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the
Secretary of State for Education
February 2015
Professional Conduct Panel decision and recommendations, and
decision on behalf of the Secretary of State
Teacher: Miss Ruth Christine Vaughan
Teacher
ref no: 1154265
Teacher date of birth: 7 November 1988
NCTL
Case ref no: 0011389
Date of Determination: 11 February 2015
Former employer: Oakham School (“the school”)
A. Introduction
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and
Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 9 – 11 February at 53-55 Butts Road,
Earlsdon Park, Coventry, CV1 3BH to consider the case of Miss Ruth Christine Vaughan.
The panel members were Mrs Sheba Joseph (Teacher Panellist – in the Chair), Ms Gill
Goodswen (Teacher Panellist) and Mr Jake Greenwood (Lay Panellist).
The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds LLP Solicitors.
The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Marios Lambis of 2 Hare Court
instructed by Nabarro Solicitors.
Miss Vaughan was not present. She gave evidence by video link and attended by video
link for a portion of the evidence of the deputy head teacher of the school at the relevant
time.
The hearing took place in public and was recorded.
B. Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 21
October 2014.
It was alleged that Miss Vaughan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct/ and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that:
Whilst employed at Oakham School (“the school”)
1. Between June and December 2013, you engaged in an inappropriate relationship
with Student A, a current and/or former student at the school, including but not
restricted to you:
a. Exchanging mobile telephone numbers with student A,
b. Sending to and/or receiving from student A text messages,
c. Making telephone callings to and/or receiving telephone calls from student
A,
d. Kissing student A on the lips,
e. Kissing student A using your tongue,
f. Engaging in sexual activity with student A,
g. Having sexual intercourse with student A;
2. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 1 was sexually motivated;
3. On or around 18 September 2013, when questioned by the school, you denied
having formed any kind of sexual / inappropriate relationship with student A;
4. Your conduct as set out at paragraph 3 above was dishonest in that you had
formed an inappropriate and / or sexual relationship with student A and you lied to
conceal this;
5. On 16 November 2013, you attended the Lord Nelson ("the pub") and you:
a. bought alcoholic drinks for:
i. student B,
ii. student C,
b. allowed student B and/or student C to consume alcoholic drinks in your
presence,
c. did not inform the pub that student B and/or student C were:
i. under 18; and
ii. consuming alcoholic drinks;
6. In or around late 2013, on one or more occasions, you inappropriately contacted:
a. student B by telephone and/or text message and/or facebook and
i. encouraged him lie to about the circumstances under which the
alcoholic drinks were purchased,
b. student C on facebook and you:
i. encouraged him lie to about the circumstances under which the
alcoholic drinks were purchased,
ii. asked student C to contact student B on your behalf to tell him what
he should say if questioned by the school;
7. Your actions as described at paragraphs 6(a)(i) and/or 6(b)(i) and/or 6(b)(ii) above
were dishonest.
In advance of the hearing, Miss Vaughan denied the allegations and denied having been
guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and or/ conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute.
C. Preliminary applications
The panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of Miss
Vaughan.
The panel is satisfied that the National College has complied with the service
requirements of regulation 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations
2012 (the “regulations”).
The panel is also satisfied that the notice of proceedings complies with paragraphs 4.11
and 4.12 of the procedures.
The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.28 of the
procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher.
In making its decision, the panel has noted that the teacher may waive the right to
participate in the hearing. The panel understands that its discretion to commence a
hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and
caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one.
The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of
R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The teacher is not present, residing in Saudi Arabia. The panel
therefore considers that Miss Vaughan has waived her right to be present at the hearing
in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. The panel has had
regard to the requirement that it be only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a
decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. The panel considers that
the teacher has plainly waived her right to appear. There is no indication that an
adjournment would result in Miss Vaughan attending the hearing. The panel has also
had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to Miss Vaughan in not attending, and although she will not be able to cross-examine witnesses or make representations to the
Panel she is available to provide her account of events by video evidence. The Panel
has had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the
teacher but considers, in light of her waiver of her right to appear, that on balance, these
are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a
reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today.
The panel considered an application by the presenting officer to amend allegation 5a to
replace the word “bought” with “provided”. The panel considered that the amendment
would cause unfairness to Miss Vaughan, since her case has been prepared on the basis
of the allegation having been that she bought alcoholic drinks for Student B and Student
C. The panel exercised caution given that this hearing is proceeding in the absence of
Miss Vaughan. The panel has been told that Miss Vaughan does not object to the
amendment, but has seen no communication stating this. The panel also considered
whether to hold this application in abeyance until Miss Vaughan gave evidence but
considered that it would need to question Student C about this incident, and would need
to be clear about the nature of the allegation in order to do so. This application was
therefore refused.
D. Summary of evidence
Documents
In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:
Section 1: Chronology and Anonymised Student List Pages 1 – 3
Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response Pages 4 – 21
Section 3: National College for Teaching and Leadership Witness Statements
Pages 22 – 38
Section 4: National College for Teaching and Leadership Documents
Pages 39 – 101
Section 5: Teacher Documents Pages 102 - 133
The panel decided to admit two documents provided by the presenting officer, those
being an application for employment at the school and a cv. The panel considered that it
was fair to admit these documents and that they were reasonably relevant to the case.
The panel had been unclear about Miss Vaughan’s employment status at the time of the
allegations and these documents assisted to clarify that Miss Vaughan does fall within
the jurisdiction of these proceedings as set out in regulations 2 and 3. These documents
were paginated as pages 101a to 101e.
The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the
hearing and the additional documents produced by the presenting officer referred to
above.
Witnesses
The panel heard oral evidence from Student A, Student C and the deputy head teacher
of the school at the relevant time, all called by the presenting officer.
The panel also heard evidence from Miss Vaughan by video link.
E. Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
We have now carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision.
We confirm that we have read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the
hearing and those documents produced during the hearing.
Miss Vaughan commenced working at the school in September 2012 as a newly qualified
teacher of Design and Technology having completed her PGCE in June 2012. In June
2013, the deputy head teacher was informed of a rumour regarding Miss Vaughan’s
relationship with Student A. Both Student A and Miss Vaughan denied the allegation.
Further concerns were raised on 17 November 2013 about an incident the previous
evening regarding Miss Vaughan having allegedly purchased drinks for Student B and
Student C at the Lord Nelson pub. On 9 December 2013, the deputy head teacher was
contacted by Student B’s mother regarding alleged contact made by Miss Vaughan to
Student B regarding the incident. On 11 December 2013, the deputy head teacher was
again contacted by Student B’s mother regarding a message Student C had received on
facebook which allegedly came from Miss Vaughan and which Student C had passed to
Student B. A disciplinary hearing was held on 12 December 2013, following which Miss
Vaughan was summarily dismissed as from 16 December 2013.
Findings of Fact
Our findings of fact are as follows:
We have found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons:
1 Whilst employed at Oakham School (“the school”) between June and December
2013, you engaged in an inappropriate relationship with student A, a current and/or
former student at the school, including but not restricted to you
a exchanging mobile telephone numbers with student A,
b sending to and/or receiving from student A text messages,
c making telephone callings to and/or receiving telephone calls from student A,
d kissing student A on the lips,
e kissing student A using your tongue
f engaging in sexual activity with student A,
g having sexual intercourse with student A,
Student A gave evidence that, following the school leavers’ ball on 28 June 2013, he and
Miss Vaughan exchanged mobile telephone numbers.
Miss Vaughan stated that she did not remember passing her mobile number to Student A
but stated that he had sent her text messages that evening. She stated that she
believed another teacher had passed on her number.
The panel has seen the bill for Student A’s mobile phone in which calls and text
messages to Miss Vaughan have been itemised from 30 June 2013 until 6 July 2013 and
12 July 2013, respectively. The panel does not have any independent confirmation that
the number identified belonged to Miss Vaughan, but note that she has not denied that
this was the case.
In Miss Vaughan’s representations for these proceedings, she stated that during the
summer through text message and irregular calls, she and Student A became friends. In
order to do this, the panel were of the view that she and Student A must have exchanged
numbers. The panel considered it unlikely that another teacher would have provided a
mobile number of a colleague to a student.
The above evidence led the panel to conclude that sub-paragraphs a – c inclusive were
proven on the balance of probabilities.
Student A stated that, at 1am, when his school leavers’ ball had ended he and Miss
Vaughan kissed on the mouth, with tongues. Student A’s evidence was that that there
had been more kissing in the early part of July. He stated that he and Miss Vaughan
began a sexual relationship on a date between 15– 27 July, before he went on holiday to
Europe.
Miss Vaughan’s evidence was that Student A had gone to kiss her on the lips by accident
when leaving the school leavers’ ball as he was hugging other members of staff and
kissing them on the cheek. Miss Vaughan’s evidence was that she and Student A had
first kissed and engaged in sexual activity after she returned from Thailand after 28
August 2013t. She stated that they had engaged in sexual intercourse on the first
occasion when she visited Student A in his second week of attending University.
Both Student A and Miss Vaughan provided evidence that they had kissed and engaged
in sexual activity during the time period set out in allegation 1, albeit that they differed in
their accounts of precisely when such activity took place. The panel therefore concluded
that it was more probable than not that the activity described in sub-paragraphs d – g
occurred during the time period set out in allegation 1. The panel therefore found subparagraphs
d – g proven.
The panel went on to consider whether the conduct alleged in paragraphs a – g
constituted an inappropriate relationship. The panel had regard to the school’s “Teaching
Staff Code of Conduct”. This stated that communication with former pupils on personal
social network sites should occur only after 1 September following a student’s departure
from the school. Whilst this was a reference to social network sites, the panel considered
that the same rationale would also apply to phone communications. Since messages
were sent and telephone calls occurred during the summer period, the panel considered
this constituted an inappropriate relationship.
The panel also considered that the kissing, sexual activity and sexual intercourse
constituted an inappropriate relationship. Although Miss Vaughan had not taught Student
A, she had contact with him at the combined cadet force (“CCF”), which the deputy head
teacher clearly stated was a school activity. Student A was one of the senior members of
the CCF and taught lessons to other cadets alongside Miss Vaughan. Regardless of
this, Student A, whilst at the school, was a student, and Miss Vaughan was in a position
of responsibility, being a teacher. The evidence of Miss Vaughan and Student A was
contradictory in terms of when their relationship became sexual. Nevertheless even on
Miss Vaughan’s account it is apparent that kissing and sexual activity took place after 28
August and sexual intercourse occurred during Student A’s second week of University.
Since the relationship was spawned out of the position of trust that Miss Vaughan had,
the panel considered this to be inappropriate. Miss Vaughan accepted during her
evidence that it did not make any difference to the appropriateness of the relationship
that Student A was no longer at School. She expressed regret that it had ever
happened. The relationship was kept secret which indicated that Miss Vaughan at the
time understood that it was inappropriate. The Panel therefore found allegation 1 proven.
2 Your conduct as set out at paragraph 1 was sexually motivated
Since sexual intercourse took place between Miss Vaughan and Student A, the panel
considered that it was more likely than not that this activity was sexually motivated. The
panel therefore found this allegation proven.
3 Whilst employed at the school on or around 18 September 2013, when
questioned by the school, you denied having formed any kind of sexual /
inappropriate relationship with student A;
The meeting file note of 18 September 2013 states that “Ruth said that she had never
had any form of relationship with [Student A]”.
In oral evidence, Miss Vaughan stated that, during this meeting, she had been asked a
question as to whether she had had sex with Student A at the end of the school leavers’
ball or at the end of the concert, which the panel understood to have taken place the on
the evening prior to the school leavers’ ball. She stated that she was also asked if she
had been in contact with Student A since then. She stated that she had said no, since
sexual intercourse had not taken place by the time of the school leavers’ ball, and that
she was not, at the time that the question was posed, in contact with Student A.
On the balance of probabilities the panel preferred the evidence set out in the meeting
file note, since Miss Vaughan had the motivation to present to the panel a narrower
interpretation of the question as referring only to a specific time period. The panel
considered that it was more likely than not that the school was interested in whether a
relationship had occurred at all.
It was apparent to the panel from the meeting file note that she had denied that a sexual/
inappropriate relationship had taken place. The panel therefore found this allegation
proven.
4 Whilst employed at the school your conduct as set out at paragraph 3 above was
dishonest in that you had formed an inappropriate and / or sexual relationship with
Student A and you lied to conceal this;
It was apparent to the panel that Miss Vaughan had denied this relationship despite it
being the case that, on Miss Vaughan’s own evidence, sexual activity had taken place.
The panel went on to consider whether Miss Vaughan’s actions were dishonest. The
Panel received advice that there was a further requirement to consider two questions
when deciding whether Miss Vaughan’s actions were dishonest.
The panel was advised that the first limb of the traditional test to which panels are
referred is “whether the panel is satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Miss
Vaughan’s actions would be regarded as dishonest according to the standards of
ordinary and reasonable people”.
The panel was also informed of judicial comment in a November 2014 case which was of
persuasive authority, which stated that the question the panel should ask itself was
whether, according to the standard of the reasonable and honest professional (in that
case doctor, in this case teacher) what Ms Vaughan had said was dishonest. If so, is the
panel satisfied that Miss Vaughan herself must have realised that her actions would be
regarded as dishonest by those standards? The panel accepted that only if the answer
to both these questions is yes, can the allegation of dishonesty be established in this
case.
On the objective test, the panel was satisfied that both reasonable and honest people
and reasonable and honest teachers would consider it dishonest for a teacher to lie
regarding her relationship with a student.
The panel went on to consider whether Miss Vaughan would have known that what she
was doing was, by those standards, dishonest. It considered that she must have known
that her response would offend the normally accepted standards of honest conduct. The
panel considered that Miss Vaughan would have understood that she was being asked
the questions in order for the school to understand whether anything inappropriate had
occurred between her and Student A. The panel considered that Miss Vaughan would
have had a motivation to lie, since if her relationship with Student A had come to light, it
would have placed her position at the school in jeopardy. The panel did therefore
consider that it was more probable than not that she had lied to conceal the relationship.
The panel therefore found this allegation proven.
5ai and ii Whilst employed at the school on 16 November 2013, you attended the
Lord Nelson ("the pub") and you bought alcoholic drinks for student B; student C,
The panel observed the cctv footage from the Lord Nelson from the 16 November 2013.
Both Student C and the deputy head teacher in their oral evidence identified Miss
Vaughan. The panel observed Miss Vaughan take what appeared to be money from
Student B, purchase three pints of lager or beer from the bar, return to the table, and
place two of those pints in front of Student B and Student C. She then gave Student B
what appeared to be some money back.
This allegation was denied by Miss Vaughan who had stated that she had purchased the
drinks but that they were intended for her group who she had gone to the pub with.
On viewing the CCTV footage, the panel concluded that Miss Vaughan had bought the
drinks for Student B and Student C and found this allegation proven.
5b Whilst employed at the school on 16 November 2013, you attended the Lord
Nelson ("the pub") and you allowed student B and/or student C to consume
alcoholic drinks in your presence,
The Panel found it proven that Miss Vaughan purchased the alcoholic drinks, placed
them in front of Student B and Student C who drunk from the glasses. The Panel
therefore considered that Miss Vaughan had allowed them to consume the drinks in her
presence. This allegation was found proven.
6bi Whilst employed at the school In or around late 2013, on one or more
occasions, you inappropriately contacted student C on facebook and you
encouraged him to lie about the circumstances under which the alcoholic drinks
were purchased,
The panel has seen the facebook message sent by Miss Vaughan. Miss Vaughan has
initially disputed facebook contact, then when presented with the facebook message
accepted that it was sent by her. She had gone on to state that the page seen by the
panel does not display a true reflection of events since the conversation prior to her
comments that had taken place with Student C had been removed.
The panel viewed the facebook message from Miss Vaughan. This stated “I just need
him to say...you both remember me asking u to leave... I didn’t buy u drinks. you (Student
C) don’t drink atal” (sic). Since the Panel has found it proven that Miss Vaughan did
purchase the drinks for Student B and Student C, the Panel considered that this
message did constitute an encouragement to Student C to lie, and therefore found this
allegation proven. The panel had no evidence however, as to who initiated the exchange
of messages.
The panel considered it inappropriate for Miss Vaughan to have sent this message. The
school’s Teaching Staff Code of Conduct states “it is not appropriate to have an existing
school pupil as a contact on any such site”. Even if Student C had not been a contact of
Miss Vaughan’s on facebook, the rationale for this rule was to prevent exchanges with
students by social media.
The panel also considered that the content was inappropriate since it contained an
encouragement to lie.
This allegation was therefore found proven.
6bii Whilst employed at the school In or around late 2013, on one or more
occasions, you inappropriately contacted student C on Facebook and you asked
student C to contact student B on your behalf to tell him what he should say if
questioned by the school;
It was apparent to the panel that it was intended for the message to Student C to be
passed on to Student B, since it was prefaced with “I just need him to say...”
For the reasons stated in respect of paragraph 6bii above, the panel found that this was
inappropriate and found this allegation proven.
7 Your actions as described at paragraphs 6a and / or 6bi and / or 6bii above were
dishonest.
The panel only considered dishonesty in respect of allegations 6bi and 6bii, since it has
found allegation 6a not proven. It considered the advice provided by the Legal Adviser in
respect of dishonesty referred to above in respect of allegation 4.
The panel considered it would have assisted its deliberations to have the full exchange of
messages between Student C and Miss Vaughan to understand the context. However,
the facebook message itself sent by Miss Vaughan stated, “I just need him to say” and
provided details of the lie Students B and C should provide to the head teacher. The
panel considered that both the honest and reasonable man, and the honest and
reasonable teacher would consider this to be dishonest. Miss Vaughan had a motivation
for Student B and Student C to lie, since she faced disciplinary proceedings, and the
panel considered that it was more likely than not that she would have understood that her
actions would have offended the normally accepted standards of honest conduct.
We have found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proven, for
these reasons:
5c Whilst employed at the school on 16 November 2013, you attended the Lord
Nelson ("the pub") and you did not inform the pub that student B and/ or student C
were i. under 18 and ii. consuming alcoholic drinks
Miss Vaughan stated in oral evidence that she had informed a member of the bar staff.
However, this had not been stated by Miss Vaughan previously in her representations at
either the disciplinary hearing or for these proceedings. She had produced a letter which
appeared to be from that member of the bar staff. This stated that he had been made
aware from a fellow staff member that a pupil in the pub had been using someone else’s
passport and had been ejected from the premises. The panel considered that if Miss
Vaughan had informed him about Student B and/ or Student C, he would have stated this
in his letter.
However, the panel did not consider that Miss Vaughan would have had any reason to
inform the pub that Student B and/ or Student C were under 18 and consuming alcoholic
drinks. Miss Vaughan stated that there were occasions when students at the School
were permitted to drink alcohol from the age of 16, including a trip to Egypt. This was
confirmed by Student C and the deputy headteacher of the School. Student C had stated
that Miss Vaughan would have seen him drinking alcohol during the trip to Egypt and that
Miss Vaughan would not necessarily have known his age since he could have been 18
and had to repeat his academic year. The deputy headteacher accepted that Miss
Vaughan may not have known Student C was not in his final academic year, and it was
possible that he may have been repeating an academic year.
The panel also noted that other more senior staff members were in the pub and that
there was no evidence that they had informed the pub that Students B and C were under
18 and drinking alcohol.
The panel therefore found this allegation not proven.
6a Whilst employed at the school In or around late 2013, on one or more
occasions, you inappropriately contacted student B by telephone and/or text
message and/or Facebook and encouraged him lie to about the circumstances
under which the alcoholic drinks were purchased,
The panel had no evidence from Student B who did not provide a witness statement nor
attend this hearing. No witness statement was obtained from Student B for the school
disciplinary hearing. Student B’s mother, who had reported this allegation to the school,
was not called as a witness. The panel was therefore unable to test Student B’s mother
regarding the account that she had provided in an email to the school, and was unable to
ask Student B about this incident. The panel did not therefore consider that the
presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof, and could not find that it was more
probable than not that this incident had occurred.
This allegation was found not proven.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute
In considering the allegations that the panel has found proven, the panel has had regard
to the definitions in The Teacher Misconduct – Prohibition of Teachers Advice, which we
refer to as the ‘guidance’.
The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Miss Vaughan in relation to the facts found
proven, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by
reference to Part Two, Miss Vaughan 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
treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect,
and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position;
Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their
own attendance and punctuality;
The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Miss Vaughan fell significantly short of the
standards expected of the profession.
In respect of Miss Vaughan’s relationship with Student A, the panel considered that this
was borne out of the position of trust that Miss Vaughan was in, as a teacher in Student
A’s school, despite him having recently left the School. The Panel considered that the
expectation of the obligations upon Miss Vaughan would not have changed overnight.
This was indicated by the school’s policy preventing social media interactions with former
pupils until 1 September after the pupil left the school. If such interaction was prevented,
it is apparent that a relationship would also have been a serious breach of the School’s
polices, practices and ethos.
In respect of Miss Vaughan’s purchasing of alcoholic drinks for Students B and C and
allowing them to drink them in her presence, the panel did not consider that this
behaviour was blameworthy, since there was no evidence that Miss Vaughan knew that
they were under the age of 18. Therefore, the panel did not consider this was
unacceptable professional conduct.
With regard to allegations 6b and 7, the panel considered that Miss Vaughan’s behaviour
had just crossed the threshold for unacceptable professional conduct, since it was an
encouragement to pupils to lie.
The panel notes that the matters found proven in respect of allegation 1 took place
outside of the education setting, as may the sending of a facebook message to Student
C. However, a relationship with Student A had the potential for him to be exposed to
harm. Her encouragement for Students B and C to lie, had the potential to affect their
moral compass.
Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that Miss Vaughan is guilty of unacceptable
professional conduct.
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 pupil’s lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in
the way they behave.
The findings of misconduct are serious and the conduct displayed would likely have a
negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public
perception.
The panel therefore finds that Miss Vaughan’s actions constitute conduct that may bring
the profession into disrepute.
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State
Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that
may bring the profession into disrepute, it is necessary for the panel to go on to consider
whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the
Secretary of State.
In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order
should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate
measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not
be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although
they are likely to have punitive effect.
The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the
Teacher Misconduct – The prohibition of Teachers advice and having done so has found
all 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.16
In light of the panel’s findings against Miss Vaughan, which involved an inappropriate
relationship with a former pupil, protection of pupils is an important factor, given the
boundary issues identified.
The panel has found conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and therefore
public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that
found against Miss Vaughan were not treated with due seriousness when regulating the
conduct of the profession.
The panel considered that a public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of
conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Miss Vaughan
was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.
Notwithstanding the 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 Vaughan.
In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest
considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Miss
Vaughan. The panel took further account of the guidance, 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 the panel considered are relevant in this case
are as set out below. However, in each case, the panel carefully considered the extent to
which each factor is relevant.
Serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’
Standards
Given the findings of unacceptable professional conduct, which involved breaches of
Teachers’ Standards, this factor is a relevant one. However, although serious, the panel
did consider the conduct of Miss Vaughan to be at the lower end of the possible
spectrum, given that there was no evidence of grooming. There was no evidence that
Miss Vaughan had taught Student A, although she did come into contact with him during
their CCF activities, in which Miss Vaughan had a role as an instructor, and Student A as
a cadet and trainee instructor.
Abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) or violation of the rights
of pupils
The panel considered that Miss Vaughan’s relationship with Student A was borne out of
the position of trust that Miss Vaughan was in. However, there was no indication that
Student A was vulnerable. There was no evidence that the relationship had started prior
to Student A leaving the school, albeit that it commenced shortly afterwards.
Dishonesty especially where there have been serious consequences, and/or it has been
repeated and/or covered up)
The panel has found two instances of dishonesty. In relation to the questions asked
about her sexual/ inappropriate relationship with Student A, Miss Vaughan gave oral
evidence that she had later informed the head teacher that she hadn’t previously been
completely honest, although the panel were not able to verify this with the Head who was
not a witness in these proceedings. Miss Vaughan told the panel under oath that she
believed that she had given a truthful answer at the time of being questioned, and that
the question put to her was narrowly framed. The panel were concerned by this, since it
had found that Miss Vaughan had denied any form of relationship with Student A.
Nevertheless, Miss Vaughan has told the Panel that a sexual relationship did take place.
With regard to the dishonesty in respect of the contact with Student C on facebook,
although this just crossed the threshold for unacceptable professional conduct, the panel
did not consider that it had had serious consequences for Student B or C. The panel was
conscious that it did not have evidence of the full facebook exchange between Student C
and Miss Vaughan nor evidence of who had initiated the exchange. Whilst there was
sufficient evidence of dishonesty, the panel therefore did not have the full context of the
comments made. Nevertheless, the panel noted that this was the second occasion on
which Miss Vaughan had acted dishonestly.
Sexual misconduct, eg involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual
nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the
individual’s professional position
The panel has found Miss Vaughan’s actions to have been sexually motivated since she
engaged in sexual intercourse with Student A. However, as referred to above the panel
considered the conduct of Miss Vaughan to be at the lower end of the possible spectrum.
There was no evidence of grooming, nor any evidence that the relationship had started
prior to Student A leaving the school, albeit that it commenced shortly afterwards.
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 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. There was no evidence that Miss Vaughan’s actions were not deliberate, nor to
suggest that she was acting under duress.
Miss Vaughan does have a previous good record, although the panel heard oral
evidence that Miss Vaughan had previously been advised about the appropriate
boundaries to have with students. The deputy head teacher had observed Miss
Vaughan’s teaching and he had no concerns about her competence. The panel has
also seen evidence of Miss Vaughan’s positive attitude when training cadets in which she
has been noted to have been prepared to “nurture, support, help, cajole and assist”. A
reference provided by the Bristol University Officer Training Corps described Miss
Vaughan as “a class act”, “very bright, strident, competent and confident” with the “social
composure and bearing to deal with the whole spectrum of pupils, parents, governors
and VIPs”. A physical training instructor in the armed forces whilst Miss Vaughan was
training as a potential officer recruit referred to Miss Vaughan achieving “consistently
outstanding results” and that “trust was her main strength. People, including myself,
trusted her”. The panel has also noted that another deputy head of the school has
stated that “in a different setting I think you would be a good person to employ” despite
having to declare her dismissal from the school. The panel also noted that a school in
which Miss Vaughan had undertaken supply work had provided “great feedback” and had
asked the supply agency if she would work for them on a full time basis.
The panel also noted that Miss Vaughan was a very junior teacher at the time of these
events, and that with experience, she may have acquired the ability to define boundaries
with pupils.
The panel had regard to the degree of insight demonstrated by Miss Vaughan. It was
noted that Miss Vaughan expressed remorse regarding the relationship with Student A,
and that she appreciated that it was unacceptable despite Student A having left the
school. However, the panel was concerned that in her representations to it, she stated
that at the meeting on 18 September she had felt that pupil rumours had set back the
efforts she had made to demonstrate her professional conduct. This was despite her
admission of having, by that time, engaged in flirtatious banter with Student A and
“probably kissed”. She did not appear to appreciate that it was her own actions that had
created the situation.
Having carefully considered all of the above, the majority of the panel came to the view
that prohibition is both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public
interest considerations outweigh the interests of Miss Vaughan. The two instances of
dishonesty and the panel’s finding that Miss Vaughan had not been honest under oath
were significant factors in forming that opinion, together with the panel’s concerns about
her level of insight. Accordingly, the panel makes a recommendation to the Secretary of
State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect.
The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for them to decide
to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel was
mindful that the Teacher Misconduct – Prohibition of Teachers Advice advises that a
prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances in any given case that
may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order
reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than two years.
Whilst inappropriate, the relationship with Student A had not begun with any grooming
whilst Student A was a pupil. Miss Vaughan was an inexperienced teacher, and with
experience the panel considered that she may be able to demonstrate an ability to define
appropriate boundaries, rendering her safe to return to practice. At present the Panel did
not consider she has sufficient insight, but that she would benefit from a period of
reflection. The panel felt the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate.
One of the panel members considered that this was a situation in which a period of 5
years should lapse before Miss Vaughan had the ability to apply for a review. Miss
Vaughan has stated that she will be residing in the Middle East for a period of 2 years
and that panel member felt that she would, by doing so, be removing herself from a
normal school environment in England, although it was not known what work Miss
Vaughan would be undertaking there. Since it might not involve contact with students of
this age group, it is likely she would therefore need further time to prove that she had
sufficient insight, could set suitable boundaries and behave appropriately in a school
setting.
However, the majority of the panel decided that it would be proportionate in all the
circumstances for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for Miss
Vaughan to be able to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a period of three
years. In reaching this view, the panel had regard to the supply work that Miss Vaughan
had undertaken with positive feedback, signalling that Miss Vaughan had commenced
the process to demonstrate a safe return to practice.
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
I have given very careful consideration to this case. I have considered the
recommendations made by the panel in this case both in respect of sanction and review
period.
I have also read carefully the guidance published by the Secretary of State and have
taken into account the need to balance the public interest with the interest of the teacher.
I have taken into account the need to be proportionate.
This is a case in which the teacher has breached acceptable boundaries and has also
been dishonest about her actions. These are both serious matters.
However the panel are clear that this case did not involve any sort of grooming and that
the activities all took place after the student had finished school.
Nonetheless the findings are serious. It is clear that Miss Vaughan’s behaviours are 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
treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect,
and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position;
Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality;
I am satisfied that the conduct of Miss Vaughan fell significantly short of the standards
expected of the profession. I support the recommendation of the panel that a prohibition
order is both in the public interest and proportionate.
I have given careful consideration to the matter of a review period. Miss Vaughan was an
inexperienced teacher, and with the panel have expressed their view that with more
experience, she may be able to demonstrate an ability to define appropriate boundaries,
rendering her safe to return to practice. The panel also noted that at present Miss
Vaughan did have sufficient insight, but that she would benefit from a period of reflection.
The panel have recommended a review period of three years and I support that.
This means that Miss Ruth Vaughan is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and
cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or
children’s home in England. She may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but
not until 20 February 2018, 3 years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not
an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If she does apply, a panel will
meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful
application, Miss Ruth Vaughan remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely.
This Order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher.
Miss Ruth Vaughan has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order.
NAME OF DECISION MAKER: Alan Meyrick
Date: 18 February 2015
This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.
