‘There are few things more dangerous than a mixture of power, arrogance and incompetence.’ Ben Herbert

The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) is the Government body whose role is to regulate teachers. But who regulates them? During the last six years, I have had time to look at how this publicly funded body operates. The extraordinary lengths that this DfE department has gone to, in order to secure its own witnesses, is highly questionable and deeply concerning.

In 2019, by way of Judicial Review, I even managed to get a Panel’s Decision quashed, with The Secretary of State for Education having to admit that unlawful decisions had been made.

Those of you who are familiar with my blog will be aware that, in 2017, the NEU (formerly NUT) referred me to the TRA. I had successfully sued one of their members just two months before the referral was made.

Recently, my own Union – The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) – wrote to the TRA calling for their investigation to be discontinued. The NAHT wrote ‘The (NEU) referral was never about public interest but an act of revenge’, they went on to state that the TRA have taken ‘unusual steps’ in respect of securing their witnesses.

Throughout their investigation Kingsley Napley (DfE, TRA lawyers) continue to receive and ignore messages from people they are hoping to rely upon:

Witness A - June 2019.  “Felt that they did not want to be involved in the TRA investigation any longer”

Witness B - November 2021. "They still do not wish to receive any communication from Kingsley Napley or the TRA and no longer wishes to have any involvement with the matter regarding Pepe Hart”.

Witness B - March 2021. “Are you serious? I haven’t had any contact from anyone with regards to this so assumed it had all been forgotten about! It is ridiculous how after all this time you feel you can just contact me asking for dates”.

Witness B - June 2021. “I have nothing to say and have said I do not wish to be contacted. Please stop contacting me”.

Witness C - March 2020. “I have repeatedly sent emails to say that I will not be attending the hearing and that I do not wish to be contacted any longer. It is not good for my mental health to continue with this as after 5 years I need to let go”.

Witness D - March 2018 Asked for witness statement to be withdrawn and claims they were threatened with legal action by the TRA.

Reading the above, it is clear that these people do not want to be involved, yet Kingsley Napley, Government lawyers, continue to pressurise them.

‘If you succeed in misleading somebody, do not think of him being a fool, rather think about how he trusted you.’ Hazrat Ali

The contents of my blog were raised in a recent telephone conversation between Amicie Knowles of Kingsley Napley and one of their witnesses. The witness put it to Ms Knowles that they had read (in my blog) that “the TRA does not have the powers to summons a witness”.

In her response Ms Knowles “reiterates that she had not read the specific blog, however confirmed that if this is the information provided it was inaccurate”.

The information I provide is not inaccurate and it would be good practice for Ms Knowles to read my blog before making claims about its accuracy.

The TRA does not have the power to summons a witness. It is misleading for Ms Knowles to claim otherwise.

To reiterate, in order to obtain a witness summons, the TRA must make an application to a Court. The Court will decide whether to grant the summons, not the TRA. The TRA has never applied to a Court for a witness summons.

In a Hearing in 2019, my lawyer informed the Panel that they do not have the power to summons witnesses and that only a Court can do this.  One of the Panelist's argued with my lawyer that a TRA witness (in a different case, separate to mine) had shown up to a recent Hearing, to give evidence because that witness had been summonsed by the TRA.

When my lawyer asked the Panelist if they had actually seen the Court summons, she replied no.  The Panelist was clearly unaware that the TRA does not have the power to summons witnesses. This is concerning. How many occasions has a Panel been led to believe that a TRA witness is appearing as a result of a witness summons?

A while back, Kingsley Napley also sent out letters to potential witnesses containing the line “One of the Panels Decisions was to issue a direction requiring your attendance at the Hearing".

For the avoidance of doubt, this is not a Witness Summons. The Panel that made this decision does not have the power to summons anyone. Why are the TRA trying so hard to mislead and force people to support their case since 2017?

‘Desperate times breed desperate measures’ William Shakespeare

The TRA appears to contradict itself on the issue of witness summons. At yet another Case Management Hearing in May 2021, Mark Millin (TRA, DfE Lawyer) was asked by Graham Miles (Independent Legal Adviser to the Panel)

"Obviously it would be open to the TRA to witness summons a reluctant witness. Has any consideration been given to that?"

Mr Millin replied

"If you do threaten a witness with summons…you end up with a very reluctant witness who's not engaged throughout and who isn't prepared to cooperate to give a full witness statement. All parties end up, including the panel, with a witness that doesn't want to be there and their evidence is, I wouldn't say useless...but it's difficult for all parties."

So why have the TRA gone to such extreme lengths, threatening their own witnesses with a summons when their own lawyer acknowledges that such a witness is of very little use?

‘It’s a very good question, very direct and I’m not going to answer it.’ George H.W. Bush

In May 2021, Chris Rushton a TRA Panelist asked the same Mr Millin 

“How many witnesses the TRA had?”

After some time, Mr Millin said,

"I don’t know."

He was asked again by Mr Rushton,

"Would there be any witnesses left giving evidence on your side?"

After a long and painful pause, Mr Millen responded,

"I don’t know the answer off the top of my head, it’s a good question."

Mr Rushton again prompted Mr Millin,

"You’re not instantly sure there would be any witnesses attending live in Coventry?

Mr Millin again could not give an answer.

Chris Rushton was frustrated and went on to ask Mr Millin,

"Why has it taken more than two years to amend allegations with an unexplained gap?"

Mr Millin replied,

‘"Don’t know."

Why does the lawyer for the TRA know so little about a case that has been going on for at least five years?  I could tell you every inch of what I have read and heard. I am very clear about all of my responses. It is not difficult to remember when you are telling the truth.

If the TRA do not get what they want, they simply make renewed 'Applications' to the Panel. Over the period of five years, the TRA have amended the allegations no less than five times. This is ridiculous and not how a fair-minded Regulator should behave.

The Panelist, Chris Rushton, even asked Mr Millin about further amendments to allegations. These were attributed to TRA witnesses, who were members of a vile Facebook group

"Why wasn’t this brought before us in 2019 or again in 2020?"

It appeared that Mr Rushton was concerned as to why the TRA’s case was constantly changing and being delayed. Why has it taken the TRA so many years to formulate a case?  Many people have become embroiled in something that they never imagined would escalate to this level. I am informed that my case is the longest in the history of the TRA.

‘It is not our differences that divide us. It is our inability to recognise, accept and celebrate those differences.’ Audre Lorde

Recently, I read an article in The Guardian titled 'There is absolutely systemic racism': BAME Headteachers share their views.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/25/there-is-absolutely-systemic-racism-bame-headteachers-share-their-views

As a Headteacher and a person of colour, I was struck by how much this article resonated with me. Leaders are finally starting to speak out.

Our experiences include:

• ‘I always had to go over and above to show that I could do the job well’

• ‘I didn’t fit the mould’

• ‘The higher you go; the more people have a problem with taking direction from those who don’t look like them’

• ‘You work much harder than your white counterparts…some will never accept you’

• ‘I’m attuned to the micro-aggressions; the signs of the lack of respect, lack of trust, the subtle undermining and challenging'

 • ‘I’ve been accused of being too aggressive but that’s an easy slur to throw at a person of colour’

The article talks about the disproportionate numbers of cases where black Head Teachers are removed or are made to feel uncomfortable in their position. These Heads are more than competent, yet face unwarranted criticisms from teaching staff who readily lay blame at their door.

It is a sad, yet strikingly worrying collection of experiences, all very similar to mine.

‘Let us be enraged by injustice but let us not be destroyed by it.’ Bayard Rustin

I loved being a Head Teacher and did a good job. I know many children, staff and parents from the twenty-five years I was in education will attest to this.

It is abundantly clear that teachers are being harassed and forced to come forward, despite constantly stating they want no part in the matter.  They have been repeatedly asked to provide medical notes if they want to excuse themselves.  Some of these people I have not seen for fifteen years.  

Even by their own admission, Kingsley Napley, DfE lawyers have said 'they are having difficulty engaging witnesses' and this was back in 2018!

Who are the real bullies in this case?

I do not accept that a government department should be allowed to operate in such a way. A teacher who successfully challenges the TRA’s decisions, refuses to be compliant and speaks out, is targeted further with the aim of finding them guilty at all costs. I will not be scared into silence.  I worked hard and taught children that truth matters.

I have read that it is not in the interests of a teacher to criticise the TRA. However, this DfE department is not above having the spotlight shone upon them. 

Given everything that is happening in the Government today; allegations of Islamophobia, lies, misleading Parliament and internal investigations, I question why anyone would believe this Government department would operate any differently.

My MP, Chris Skidmore believes what has happened to me is 'in the public interest.'  Questions should be asked about how much public money has been spent.

My experiences during the last six years demonstrate that this could happen to anyone.

‘I can be changed by what happens to me. But I refuse to be reduced by it.’ Maya Angelou