Claire Herbert accepted a conditional caution from police for the offence of common assault on the child, who cannot be named for legal reasons
A deputy headteacher who bit, slapped and scratched a pupil during an argument has been spared a ban from the profession.
Claire Herbert, accepted a police caution in relation to the incident while working at Red Rose Primary School in Chester-Le-Street, County Durham. The fight was later reported to regulators, who have now found her guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.
The Teaching Regulation Agency panel also ruled she fell “significantly short of the standards expected of the profession”. But they have ruled she can carry on as a teacher as prohibition has been deemed “not proportionate or in the public interest”.
In evidence given to the panel, a witness said she had visited the pupil, referred to only as Child A, who told them Miss Herbert had caused two bite marks, including one on their hand and another on their head. The child also said they had been slapped and scratched by “Miss Herbert’s false nails” and said she had been “called fat” by the teacher during the incident on June 18, 2022.
The Teaching Regulation Agency panel heard the incident happened outside of school and alcohol was involved. Their report, which was published on Thursday, said: “Miss Herbert and Child A engaged in an argument that became physical, during which Miss Herbert allegedly slapped, bit and scratched Child A, causing reddening and bruising to various parts of her body.
“On 21 June 2022 Individual A, [REDACTED], and a police officer visited Child A. Child A disclosed that she had been assaulted by Miss Herbert on 18 June 2022, stating that she had been bitten, slapped and scratched. Individual A reported that there was visible bruising to Child A’s legs, face, head and hand, which Child A confirmed were injuries caused by Miss Herbert.
“On 19 December 2022, Miss Herbert accepted a conditional caution for the offence of common assault on Child A, following the incident on 18 June 2022. The School referred the matter to the TRA on 28 April 2023. The form referred to Child A disclosing that she was slapped, bitten and scratched by Miss Herbert on 18 June 2022.
“The panel was provided with a handwritten statement which Miss Herbert made to the police on 11 July 2022 as part of a voluntary police interview. The statement confirmed that she accepted an incident took place on 18 June 2022 where she used force against Child A, for which she had no lawful authority to do so.
“She further accepted she had committed a criminal offence for which she would be prepared to accept a caution.”
The bundle of documents before the panel included photographs of the injuries sustained by Child A and the panel noted she had sustained various red marks, scratches and bruising to various parts of her body, including her face, neck, leg and hand.
The panel also considered a written statement from Miss Herbert, dated July 2024, within which she described the incident as a “blur”, but accepted she had a verbal argument with Child A which became physical on both sides and said they were satisfied the child’s allegations were proven.
However, they said the incident was isolated and “out of character” for the teacher who they said “appeared to have an unblemished record”. And they added she had worked successfully in senior and trusted roles, including as a special educational needs co-ordinator and deputy safeguarding lead.
In his written report, Marc Cavey, TRA chief executive, said: “The panel finds that the conduct of Miss Herbert fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.
“The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher accepting a police caution for violent behaviour towards a child. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest.”
Outlining his decision making process, he said: “In assessing 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 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 considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Miss Herbert, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest.”
He added: “In my judgement, the extent of the insight and remorse demonstrated by Miss Herbert, when considered alongside the isolated nature of the misconduct found and the mitigating circumstances that were present, means that there is only a very limited risk of the repetition of this behaviour.
“While the misconduct found was undoubtedly serious, a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest.
“I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”