Worker ‘not dishonest’ education panel rules
THE actions of a teaching assistant who used charity funds raised at her school to pay off her son’s drug debt did constitute unacceptable professional conduct, a disciplinary panel found yesterday.
An Education Workforce Council hearing in Cardiff had been told that Caroline Hannigan, 56, raised £287 for the British Heart Foundation at Glanhowy Primary School, in Tredegar, by organising a cross-country race.
But when she got home she found her son being threatened by drug dealers, and Mrs Hannigan used the money to help pay them £300 of a £1,000 debt, the hearing was told.
Panel chairwoman Jacqui Turnbull said: “The committee find individually and when proved the actions fell short of a registered person and constitute unacceptable professional conduct.”
But the panel did not find that charge proved against Mrs Hannigan when she took the money home instead of handing it in to the office of the school. That was because the panel did not find she was dishonest in doing this.
“The committee has found she was not dishonest in relation to counts 1a and 1b, and on this basis the committee is not satisfied that the standards fell short of a registered person,” Ms Turnbull said.
The committee had “reached its own conclusion,” on those matters and on counts 1c and 1d – that the cash was not given to the British Heart Foundation but was given to a drug dealer.
The panel heard Mrs Hannigan, who had worked in the school for 23 years, was investigated over the theft in February 2015.
She was interviewed by police and taken to court, where she was handed a conditional discharge.
Mrs Hannigan, who had admitted taking the money and using it to pay the dealers and had admitted unacceptable professional conduct, did pay the money back.
David Harris, for Mrs Hannigan, said this “was not a complex plan organised prior to a charity event for dishonest purposes.”
He said: “I would invite you to consider, during the day, was there dishonesty at work in the mind of Ms Hannigan in the way that day was being run? My submission is that there was not.”
He said his client was not dishonest in taking money from the day home with her, but that dishonesty first occurred when she handed cash over for the drug debt.
Mrs Hannigan was not present during the second day of the hearing.