TRA Hearing – Successfully Challenging the TRA’s Use of Hearsay Evidence

The Client

Our client was a classroom teacher with a long and established career in education. She faced allegations of misconduct arising from incidents said to have occurred between 2018 and 2020.

The Allegations

The Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) alleged that our client had engaged in inappropriate conduct towards pupils. The case advanced included claims of unnecessary physical contact, striking a pupil with a classroom door, pushing or moving a chair while occupied by a pupil, snatching an item in a manner said to have caused injury, and failing to provide appropriate care following these incidents.

These were serious allegations, carrying the potential for prohibition from teaching and lasting damage to our client’s professional reputation.

Early Instruction and Case Preparation

We were instructed at a stage when the matter had already been referred to a Professional Conduct Panel. It became immediately apparent that the TRA’s case rested almost entirely on pupil accounts which were unsigned and, in some instances, anonymous.

From the outset, we identified that the central issue would be whether the Panel could properly admit and rely upon this material as hearsay. Without it, the evidential foundation of the case was fundamentally weak.

The TRA’s Application to Rely on Hearsay Evidence

In advance of the hearing, the TRA applied to admit these pupil accounts as hearsay. In several instances, this material constituted the sole and decisive evidence underpinning the most serious allegations.

The TRA’s position was that fairness could still be maintained in the absence of live evidence, and that the Panel could admit the statements and determine their weight at a later stage.

Our Response

On behalf of our client, we prepared a detailed and carefully structured skeleton argument opposing the application. Our submissions focused on the fundamental requirements of fairness. In a case where a teacher’s career was at risk, it was not sufficient to rely on unsigned and untested accounts that could not be challenged through cross-examination.

We also highlighted the delay in the TRA’s approach. More than two years had passed before any meaningful attempt was made to contact the pupils, and no adequate explanation was provided for their absence. The reliance on anonymous and unsigned material further compounded the problem, creating a clear risk of unreliability that could not be addressed through testing the evidence.

The Panel’s Decision

The Panel accepted our submissions and refused the TRA’s application to admit the hearsay evidence. Deprived of that material, the TRA’s case could not be sustained.

The matter was referred to the decision-maker and subsequently closed with no further action.

TRA Hearing Outcome

The case concluded with no findings of misconduct and no prohibition order.

Although our client had by that stage chosen to leave the profession, she remained determined to contest the allegations. Protecting her reputation and resisting an unfair process were matters of principle. The outcome ensured that no adverse findings were made against her and that her professional integrity remained intact

Comment from Jared McNally

“This case shows how unfair it is for regulators to rely on hearsay as the sole evidence in a professional misconduct case. From the outset, we knew that the TRA could not prove its case without hearsay, and the Panel rightly refused their application. Although our client chose to step away from teaching, she achieved the vindication she sought. The TRA’s improper attempt to rely on unsigned, hearsay accounts highlights why such evidence must be robustly challenged at every stage.”

Clifford Johnston & Co is a leading firm in Criminal Defence and Regulatory Law, based in Manchester and representing clients across England and Wales on a privately funded basis. We provide strategic advice and robust advocacy when your professional career is under TRA investigation or at risk