Rosie Hillyard

Introduction

Rosie Hillyard is an art teacher formerly of Oakhyrst Grange School in Surrey, where she taught from 1 September 2016. In July 2026 a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel examined a 22 July 2019 incident in which she hit a man — Individual A, in the decision’s wording — while he was holding a child, Child A. The hitting was admitted, and a duty-of-care failure toward Child A was found proven. Yet the panel recommended no prohibition order, and the decision maker for the Secretary of State agreed a ban was “not proportionate or in the public interest”. The outcome was publication of the findings while Hillyard remains free to teach.

Background Information

Hillyard’s TRA reference is 19502; the determination is dated 15 July 2026. The panel — Ms Geraldine Baird (chair), Ms Gill Lyon and Mr Phillip Trendall — sat virtually from 13 to 15 July 2026, in private and recorded, with Mrs Luisa Gibbons as legal adviser and Mrs Heather Anderson presenting for the TRA. Hillyard did not attend but was represented by Mr Chris Segovia of LawyersforTeachers.

The allegations were set out in a notice of proceedings dated 18 March 2026. On or around 22 July 2019 the school was informed by the LADO of safeguarding concerns; a risk assessment followed, and Hillyard was allowed to keep working under supervision at 20-minute intervals. She resigned on 5 May 2020, left on 31 August 2020, and the school referred her to the TRA on 4 September 2020.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted in part; proven by the panel; no prohibition order — publication only. Hillyard admitted hitting Individual A while he held Child A, and admitted failing her duty of care toward Child A; the panel found both proved. She denied scratching Individual A and denied failing to refer concerns about Child B; the panel found both not proved. No ban followed — the findings were published.

The allegation that she hit Individual A — inappropriate physical contact on or around 22 July 2019 — was admitted and found proved. A family court judgment of 27 March 2020 was accepted as prima facie evidence, its conclusions unchallenged by Hillyard. On the judge’s findings, she drank too much alcohol, argued, and attacked Individual A physically by hitting him and shouting loudly while he held Child A; the judge noted it would have been emotionally harmful for Child A to witness. Police were called and Hillyard was arrested. Individual A refused to support a prosecution; no further action was recommended, there being no realistic prospect of conviction.

The scratching limb was denied and found not proved. Photographs taken by Witness A, a police officer, showed red marks to Individual A’s upper right shoulder and back, appearing to be scratches, and a pocketbook entry recorded him saying, “I think I was being hit to my back at this point as I have a large scratch across my right shoulder”. But Witness A had not witnessed the incident, Individual A’s account was hearsay, and he refused to provide a statement, telling police, “I do not want to provide a statement to police as I do not want to attend court in relation to this matter”. The panel could not test the account’s reliability, concluded the scratches could have been unrelated, and found the evidence insufficient.

A further allegation — failing to notify the designated safeguarding lead or refer concerns about Child B around 13 June 2019 — was denied and found not proved: Hillyard had been told the matter was an accident, and nothing available to her indicated a referral was required. The duty-of-care allegation, admitted as to Child A only, was proved for Child A — she drank too much, argued in the child’s presence, then hit Individual A after he had picked Child A up, each choice exposing the child to risk — and not proved for Child B.

The panel was not satisfied the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct: an isolated incident outside the education setting, it did not affect how she fulfilled her teaching role. But it found the actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, breaching the Teachers’ Standards and Keeping Children Safe in Education, with behaviours associated with the offence of violence relevant. Even a sympathetic public, the panel held, “would still regard her actions in hitting Individual A whilst he was holding a child as being reprehensible”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Weighing a prohibition recommendation, the panel took account of Hillyard’s previously good history and her appropriate admissions — accepting the harm to Child A — though her non-attendance meant the panel could not test her insight. The proven conduct was “an isolated incident that occurred 7 years ago, involving particularly stressful and emotional circumstances with no evidence of any repetition”, and the risk of repetition was judged low.

Witness C, a colleague at her current special-needs school, gave an “extremely positive” reference. He called her “very much a team player”, said she is “up there with some of the best teachers I have worked with”, and stated that “throughout this time, her interactions have all been positive, she is a good team member, teacher and role model to my pupils”. Replacing her willingness to “get stuck in”, he said, would be difficult.

The panel found a public interest in retaining Hillyard, since no doubt had been cast on her abilities as an educator. Applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it concluded that here “a prohibition order would appear to be more punitive in nature, than it being a measure necessary to protect the public interest”, and recommended no prohibition order.

Current Status

On 17 July 2026 Stuart Blomfield, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepted the recommendation. He was “particularly mindful of the findings of violence in this case”, noting that the lack of full insight meant some risk of repetition remained. Nonetheless he concluded a prohibition order would be “not proportionate or in the public interest”, and that publication would send an appropriate message about unacceptable standards. Hillyard continues to teach; no prohibition order is in force.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Unlike teachers prohibited after similar findings, Hillyard kept her career: the panel accepted her actions related wholly to the circumstances of the time, and her current school valued her highly. But the published record is enduring — a formal, public finding that a teacher hit a man while he was holding a child, and failed in her duty of care toward that child. It is the regulator’s least severe serious outcome: disrepute findings published with no sanction beyond publication, for conduct found “reprehensible” yet judged unlikely to be repeated.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Miss Rosie Hillyard” — source