Caroline Bainbridge

Introduction

Caroline Bainbridge was a class teacher at Alverstoke Infant School in Gosport for more than three decades until a missed safeguarding referral ended her career. In November 2021 a pupil in her classroom said during a lesson that she had been touched; Bainbridge, the senior teacher present, acknowledged the disclosure and indicated she would follow it up, then did nothing. The disclosure surfaced days later by chance, and other staff took a full statement and referred the matter to children’s services the same day. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found both allegations against her proved, and on 13 December 2023 the decision maker, Sarah Buxcey, prohibited her from teaching indefinitely, with a two-year review.

Background Information

The decision record gives her date of birth as 10 November 1963 and her TRA reference as 20929. She joined Alverstoke Infant School on 1 January 1992 and remained until 3 April 2022, a 34-year tenure the panel described as an “unblemished record”, with no safeguarding concerns raised about her before this incident. She had made safeguarding reports before, knew the school’s referral procedures and confirmed in disciplinary interviews that she knew what she had to do and that designated safeguarding leads were on site. The TRA’s notice of proceedings issued on 21 June 2023.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

A missed safeguarding referral, not an act against a child. Bainbridge admitted the first allegation in part and the second in full but denied that her conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, and she contested the case at a virtual public hearing across four sitting days, attending and represented by her union, NASUWT. The police investigation that followed concerned the abuse of Pupil A itself, not her conduct, and no charges were pressed in it.

The disclosure came on or around 12 November 2021, during circle time, when Witness A, a newer member of staff, was leading a safeguarding lesson on the pants rule, which teaches children that their genitals are private. Pupil A put her hand up and said she had been touched and that it hurt. Bainbridge was present, and Witness A recalled that she told Pupil A she would follow the matter up. Bainbridge said she heard only a mumbled reference to pants, asked Pupil A to repeat herself without success, and found what she heard uncomfortable from a safeguarding perspective. The panel found her evidence confused and at times contradictory, noting that the claimed request to repeat appeared for the first time in oral evidence, and preferring the clear account of the only other adult in the room, it found it more likely than not that she had been aware of the full disclosure. Even on her own account, it held, any reference to pants in that context should have triggered the safeguarding procedures, and a designated safeguarding lead worked in a nearby room.

Nothing was done. Bainbridge raised the disclosure with no colleague and recorded it nowhere. It emerged only when, days later on 15 November 2021, Witness A asked Witness C during a safeguarding refresher session whether anything had come of Pupil A’s comments, and Witness C, who knew nothing of it, acted at once. With Witness B she spoke to Pupil A the same day, and the child gave a full disclosure: hands had been put in her pants and fingers inside her, it hurt, and it had happened “hundreds of times”. A referral to children’s services went the same day, and Pupil A was interviewed at school by police and a social worker.

The panel found allegation 1 proved, failure to take or ensure appropriate action to safeguard Pupil A, and allegation 2 proved, that the failure placed Pupil A at risk of further harm. A week, it held, was a very long time in safeguarding terms, and the delay also risked deterring Pupil A from speaking again. The proven facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, breaching the Teachers’ Standards and conflicting with Keeping Children Safe in Education. The school dismissed her after a disciplinary hearing on 4 April 2022 for failing to follow the correct safeguarding procedure, and her appeal was dismissed on 17 June 2022.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel accepted that her actions were not deliberate and that she had “honestly forgotten” the disclosure, and it accepted good character evidence, acknowledging her significant contribution across 34 years and finding the incident out of character. But the character witnesses appeared unaware of the detail of the allegations, and the panel found remarks in cross-examination flippant: the gap was “a week not years”, she said, adding that Pupil A had got the right help straight away and that the police did not press charges. It found some insight and remorse but no real understanding of the impact on Pupil A, while judging the risk of repetition low and the incident a one-off. It recommended prohibition with a two-year review.

Current Status

Caroline Bainbridge 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 before 19 December 2025, two years from the date of the order; this is not an automatic right, and without a successful application she remains prohibited. Sarah Buxcey, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State on 13 December 2023, placed considerable weight on the lack of full insight, judged to carry some risk of repetition, and concluded that a published decision unbacked by full remorse or insight would not satisfy the public interest. The order takes effect from the date it is served, with a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days.

Impact on Their Career/Life

A 34-year career at a single infant school ended with dismissal in April 2022 and a ban that outlasts it. The panel had no doubt been cast on her abilities as an educator before the incident, and no concern had ever been raised about her safeguarding practice, but the decision maker gave less weight to that contribution in the absence of full remorse or insight. What ended Bainbridge’s career was not an act against a child but the failure to act for one, an omission the panel found she had not fully understood even as it was judged.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Ms Caroline Bainbridge” — source