Lowri Williams, a PE teacher and rugby coach at Llandovery College in Carmarthenshire, was fully exonerated of nine allegations following a four-day Education Workforce Council disciplinary hearing
A teacher who endured a string of allegations and stepped down while her school conducted an internal probe broke down in tears after being completely exonerated.
Lowri Williams, a PE instructor and rugby coach at Llandovery College in Carmarthenshire, endured a four-day disciplinary tribunal concerning her supposed behaviour, including claims she disregarded concussion procedures and failed to maintain professional boundaries.
Yet the Education Workforce Council (EWC) panel discovered “next to no evidence” to support many of the accusations and condemned elements of the school’s internal probe as “misleading”. The panel determined there was “no case to answer for” regarding each of the nine charges and branded portions of the case “puzzling and concerning”.
The panel established that some of the allegations levelled against Ms Williams were “institutional” matters that fell under the school’s remit rather than her individual responsibility.
The educator, who previously played semi-professionally, faced nine charges before Thursday’s conclusion. The supposed misconduct concerned a tournament at Rosslyn Park in London, a fixture at the Principality Stadium in Cardiff and a netball match at Christ College Brecon.
All alleged incidents occurred between September 2023 and March 2024. Concerning the Rosslyn Park trip, where students participated in a sevens tournament, it was alleged that Ms Williams permitted pupils to carry on playing rugby despite suffering head injuries, not adhering to WRU concussion protocol, and failing to uphold professional boundaries, reports Wales Online.
However, during EWC’s conclusion on Thursday, the panel determined that Ms Williams “acted appropriately”. They referred to evidence previously heard in which Simon Bodley, former medical centre manager at the school, stated five girls reported to him as injured after the tournament, including with head injuries.
The panel discovered that pupil F, one of the girls said to have been injured, did not support his account and did not have a concussion. The panel also noted that Mr Bodley seemed to have confused his dates regarding when he saw pupil F following the event.
It was highlighted that the school’s investigation included a “misleading” report from pupil F which used selective quotes and had not been approved by the pupil.
In relation to another of the injured girls, referred to as pupil A, it was found that Ms Williams intervened, made an assessment, and continued to check on her throughout the game.
Regarding an allegation that Ms Williams had encouraged pupil A to continue playing and not disclose she had been injured, the panel said this was “not a comment likely to have been said by Ms Williams”. They labelled the evidence “contradictory” and “unsatisfactory”.
Concerning the accusation that Ms Williams failed to adhere to concussion protocol, the panel found that “the opposite appeared true”.
A separate allegation centred on a match at the Principality Stadium where a pupil sustained an injury. It was claimed that the pupil, referred to as pupil G, had informed Ms Williams about her injury and that Ms Williams had responded with words suggesting she was being dramatic. It was subsequently alleged that pupil G carried on playing and suffered a more severe injury. Pupil G departed the hearing prematurely and failed to complete her testimony.
Nevertheless, the panel examined CCTV footage of the incident which demonstrated that “this did not happen”. It emerged that Ms Williams was positioned on the opposite side of the pitch when the incident took place.
The panel determined that “nothing occurred that would have put Ms Williams in notice” of what had transpired. They concluded that pupil G had “misremembered events” and observed that her version of events was inconsistent with the CCTV evidence.
An additional element of the complaint was that pupil G felt “ignored” by Ms Williams, though the panel noted she was unable to recall what Ms Williams had actually done to make her feel this way. They ruled that this aspect of the allegation was founded on “perception”.
Another matter highlighted was that following her injury, pupil G was transported to hospital by the parents of another pupil and was not accompanied by any member of staff from the school. The panel expressed that in his testimony, Mr Bodley had been “very keen to downplay” his involvement in the situation and had intended to send her home on the bus.
They declared it was “extremely concerning” that no staff member deemed it necessary to accompany the pupil to hospital, including Mr Bodley. However, regarding Ms Williams, they determined that she was in “no position” to go as at the time she had responsibility for other pupils.
Another accusation was that a student, referred to as pupil I, drove herself and some other students to a netball match and that Ms Williams encouraged her to lie to her house mistress about it.
The panel stated the origin of this claim was “again somewhat troubling”. They referenced a quote, used in the school’s internal investigation and attributed to pupil I, as being incorrect and obtained under unknown circumstances.
The panel were more persuaded by evidence which suggested Ms Williams actually said something along the lines of: “Don’t worry, I’ll sort it.” They found “no evidence” that Ms Williams encouraged the student to lie, adding: “In short, that was not pupil I’s evidence.”
The remaining allegations pertained to a trip to London during which Ms Williams did not maintain professional boundaries. This included instances where students entered Ms Williams’ room while she was wearing shorts, that she showed them underwear she planned to wear the next day, and that she discussed her romantic life with them.
The panel referred to testimony provided by a student, known as pupil E, which detailed that a group of students approached Ms Williams’ room to chat with her.
Upon entering, it was reported that Ms Williams was already dressed in shorts and a t-shirt, and the students noticed a small pile of clothes in her room that she had been tidying away. It was heard that her underwear was part of this pile.
The panel concluded that Ms Williams did not deliberately display her underwear, but rather the students just “happened to see it” and remarked on it.
The fact that the students entered her room did not raise any issues for the panel, who stated that throughout the interaction she behaved as any normal person would have. They described her outfit of shorts and t-shirt as “perfectly appropriate” given the circumstances.
In relation to Ms Williams discussing her romantic life, the panel said this was “very limited and narrow in context”. They determined that the topic was introduced by a student and in response Ms Williams mentioned she was “speaking to someone”, revealing “almost nothing about her own situation” they labelled it a “brief interaction”.
The panel confirmed they found “no case to answer for” regarding each allegation and thanked Ms Williams for her time. Upon hearing the outcome, Ms Williams broke down in tears.