Harriet Brown
Introduction
Harriet Brown is a former assistant headteacher and SENDCO at St Patrick’s Catholic Primary School, Stockton-on-Tees, who was banned from teaching indefinitely in March 2026. A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel found that, between February 2020 and October 2023, she concealed from her school an ongoing relationship with Individual X, a convicted sex offender whose offences were sexual crimes against children under 13, and gave false or misleading answers about him when asked. Every allegation was proved, including dishonesty. The panel recommended a two-year review period; the Secretary of State’s decision maker judged that insufficient and extended it to three.
Background Information
Brown joined St Patrick’s on 1 September 2016 and built a rising career there: promoted to SENDCO, she served as acting deputy headteacher, was made assistant headteacher from September 2023, and acted as a Designated Safeguarding Lead. In late March 2019 she began a relationship with Individual X, which the school knew about. She ended it in September 2019, restarted it in October, and ended it again that November after X was arrested and charged. That same month she disclosed the offences he faced to the school — a fact the panel later treated as proof she knew what he had been charged with. On 4 February 2020, X was found guilty at trial of sexual offences against children under the age of 13. Contact had resumed: from July 2020 to October 2023 she visited him regularly in prison.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. Brown was never criminally charged; no proceedings against her appear anywhere in the decision. The findings below are regulatory adjudications made by a TRA professional conduct panel on the civil standard — the balance of probabilities — and all of them, including the dishonesty finding, were proved. Individual X’s conviction for sexual offences against children is a separate court-record fact about him, not a finding against her.
The concealment unravelled on 24 October 2023, when probation officer Individual B, during a home visit to Individual X’s parents, spoke with Brown, who initially denied and then “admitted the relationship with [X]”, including regular phone calls and prison visits. Individual B referred the matter to the Local Authority Designated Officer the next day, and prison security confirmed Brown had had “regular fortnightly visits to [X] and daily phone calls”. HMP Northumberland visitor logs later showed regular visits spanning July 2020 to October 2023. The panel found the non-disclosure proved, holding that the frequency of visits and calls evidenced a close relationship of some kind, whether sexual or not.
The false-statement allegations also succeeded. Asked, following Individual X’s arrest, whether she was still in a relationship with him, she said she was not; she told Individual C there was “no relationship”, and flagged nothing on the school’s annual safeguarding declarations. At her investigatory interview on 11 December 2023 she said she had not been aware of the reasons for Individual X’s arrest — contradicted by her November 2019 disclosure to the school and her later written admission that she knew he had been arrested for offences against a child.
Applying the test in Ivey v Genting Casinos, the panel was satisfied that “ordinary decent people would regard a teacher denying ongoing contact with a convicted child sex offender, when asked directly, while continuing to undertake regular prison visits and receive frequent telephone calls, as dishonest”. It further found a lack of integrity, and concluded the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Brown did not attend the virtual hearing on 19 to 20 February 2026, was not represented, and admitted none of the facts.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequences began at school level: Brown was sent home pending investigation on 27 October 2023 and was dismissed on 26 February 2024; a referral was said to be made to the TRA and the DBS on 25 April 2024. The panel stressed that a safeguarding professional denying contact with an individual convicted of sexual offences against children, whilst privately maintaining that contact, “created a serious safeguarding concern”. It accepted she was distressed — “crying uncontrollably” when first confronted — but noted she kept giving inconsistent accounts, and that public confidence could be seriously weakened if such conduct were not treated with the utmost seriousness.
Current Status
By decision dated 6 March 2026, taken by Stuart Blomfield on behalf of the Secretary of State, Brown is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The panel had recommended a two-year review period; Blomfield extended it to three, writing that “a two-year review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the dishonesty found, and the continued lack of full insight or remorse.” She may apply for the order to be set aside, but not before 8 April 2029 — not an automatic right.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition ended a career that was, until October 2023, one of steady advancement: the investigation report called Brown “a well-respected and trusted colleague”, “earmarked as somebody who had strong potential to be a school leader”. The panel found this no momentary lapse but sustained behaviour — she “had opportunities to disclose her ongoing regular contact with Individual X across a period of three years, which she chose not to do”. She told the panel she accepted she “had a professional responsibility to disclose any information that could give rise to a safeguarding or transferable risk”, but the panel found she “did not seem to recognise the fundamental issue with this case”, suggesting “a lack of insight and a risk of repetition”. That gap is what the extended review period targets: she “requires an extended review period in which to develop full insight and remorse into her proven conduct”. Until then, the ban stands.