Danielle Auerbach-Byrne

Introduction

Danielle Auerbach-Byrne is a science teacher whose career took her through Rainhill High School, Range High School and Harrop Fold School before she joined North Liverpool Academy as a supply teacher in January 2019, becoming permanent that May. Her problems began with overpayments: after her Rainhill employment ended, St Helens Council contacted her in January 2019 about money it had paid her in error and she had not repaid. She was interviewed under caution in December 2019, and on 23 December 2020 she was convicted of retaining wrongful credit contrary to section 24A of the Theft Act 1968 — a dishonesty offence — receiving a suspended sentence of imprisonment. She admitted the conviction and that it was dishonest when the Teaching Regulation Agency case reached a hearing on 17 October 2022, by which time she had resigned from North Liverpool Academy. Decision maker Sarah Buxcey banned her from teaching for four years before she may apply to have the order set aside.

Background Information

Auerbach-Byrne’s teaching record spanned three Merseyside schools in quick succession: Rainhill High School from November 2016 to August 2017, paid through St Helens Local Authority; Range High School from September 2017 to July 2018; and Harrop Fold School from September to December 2018. The overpayments arose at the end of the first of those posts — money from St Helens Council that continued after her employment terminated. The council raised the matter with her on or around 18 January 2019, while she was already working supply at North Liverpool Academy; she did not repay, and the matter became a police investigation with an interview on 1 December 2019. The conviction followed more than a year later, on 23 December 2020, with a sentence of imprisonment that was suspended. She remained employed at North Liverpool Academy throughout — the school appears to have continued employing a teacher under criminal proceedings for a dishonesty offence — until she tendered her resignation on 12 March 2021.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Convicted of retaining wrongful credit — keeping salary overpayments — after a police interview and a suspended sentence; admitted dishonesty; banned with a four-year review bar. The panel accepted the Certificates of Sentence and her own admissions and found both allegations proved.

The regulatory case was short and uncontroverted. The panel received the Certificates of Sentence confirming the conviction of retaining wrongful credit, an offence whose legal test requires dishonesty, and Auerbach-Byrne admitted both the conviction and that her conduct was dishonest. The panel found both allegations proved and moved to consequences. It found the offence engaged the Advice’s fraud-or-serious-dishonesty and theft categories, making unacceptable professional conduct and conduct bringing the profession into disrepute both established, and the conviction itself a relevant offence — the suspended custodial sentence being, in the panel’s words, indicative of the seriousness of the offending. The panel accepted the offence happened entirely outside the education setting and involved no pupils, but reasoned that schools must be able to trust teachers to model honesty when teaching pupils to make right judgements — a task difficult to perform where the teacher’s own conduct has been shown seriously dishonest. The panel also expressly found her actions had no potential impact on the safety or security of pupils or the public.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The mitigation picture was bleak. The panel said it was provided with limited information, found no evidence her actions were not deliberate and none that she acted under duress. It was “concerned that Ms Auerbach-Byrne showed very little insight into her conduct and the circumstances surrounding her conviction, and that little remorse was demonstrated”, and noted there was no evidence in the bundle that she had reflected on the incidents or taken steps to address her behaviour. Her own submission — that she had a tendency to “bury her head” — was accepted by the panel but read against her: it found this appeared to be a pattern in her behaviour, leaving it not reassured that there was no risk of repetition. Weighing in the balance was her contribution to the profession, which the decision maker gave less weight given the absence of remorse or insight. The panel recommended a four-year review period rather than none, expressly to give her time to reflect; Buxcey adopted it, finding a lesser period insufficient given the lack of mitigation, insight and remorse.

Current Status

Auerbach-Byrne 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 from 22 October 2026, four years from the date of the order — the window is now open, though the application is not automatic and requires a fresh panel to lift the order; without a successful application she remains prohibited for life. The order took effect on service, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days. The determination is dated 17 October 2022. Her criminal sentence — imprisonment suspended — ran separately from the regulatory order, and no further offending is recorded in the decision. She resigned from North Liverpool Academy fourteen months before the hearing, so the ban confirmed an exit she had already made.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case belongs to the quiet category of teaching bans: no pupils harmed, no classroom misconduct, no press coverage — just a payroll error kept instead of returned, escalated through council recovery, police investigation and a Theft Act conviction into a lifetime prohibition with a four-year door. It shows how the regulator treats financial dishonesty outside school as disqualifying precisely because teaching’s core function includes modelling honesty; the panel said so explicitly while simultaneously finding no safety impact. It also illustrates the compounding effect of passivity: the “bury her head” tendency that produced the original non-repayment persisted through the police interview, the non-engagement with reflection, and the thin mitigation at the hearing, each stage reading as pattern rather than incident. For Auerbach-Byrne, the set-aside window opening in October 2026 is the first genuine path back — contingent on demonstrating the insight the 2022 panel found absent.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Miss Danielle Auerbach-Byrne” — source