Mr Adam Hart

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Adam Hart

Teacher reference number: 1681553

Teacher's date of birth: 28 December 1992

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 29 August 2023

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Adam Hart, formerly employed in Birmingham, West Midlands.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Adam Hart: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegation 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Adam Hart Teacher ref number: 1681553 Teacher date of birth: 28 December 1992 TRA reference: 18645 Date of determination: 29 August 2023 Former employer: Smith’s Wood Academy, Birmingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 29 August 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Adam Hart. The panel members were Ms Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Kulvinder Sandal (teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Reynolds of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Stephen Ferson of 7BR Barristers, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Hart was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegation The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of hearing dated 7 June 2023. It was alleged that Mr Hart was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 4 April 2022 he was found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a female aged 13-17 (abuse of position of trust), contrary to s.16 Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Hart provided no admission of fact. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Hart was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Hart and provided a bundle of documents which contained evidence of attempts to contact Mr Hart. The panel noted that this included: • An email from Mr Hart to the TRA dated 27 July 2020 in which he provided the TRA with an updated postal address. • Letters from the TRA and Kingsley Napley LLP to the updated postal address Mr Hart gave on 27 July 2020. • Emails from Kingsley Napley LLP to the email address Mr Hart used to reply to the TRA on 27 July 2020. • Royal mail tracking information which indicated that correspondence was delivered to Mr Hart’s updated postal address on 4 August 2023. • A report from a tracing agent dated 5 April 2023 confirming that Mr Hart’s postal address remained the same as the address he gave to the TRA on 27 July 2020. Save for the email from Mr Hart dated 27 July 2020 there was no evidence that he had otherwise engaged with the TRA or Kingsley Napley LLP. The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the 5 case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been sent to Mr Hart in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr Hart’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Hart had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Hart was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Hart was neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 7 to 13 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 14 to 250 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses No witnesses were called to provide oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 6 Mr Hart commenced employment as a teacher of English at Smith’s Wood Academy (‘the School’) on 3 July 2017. On or around 9 July 2019, a pupil at the School, Pupil A, disclosed concerns about Mr Hart’s conduct towards her from around October 2018 to early 2019. Mr Hart was suspended from the School on 5 September 2019 and the School commenced an investigation into the allegations made by Pupil A. On 4 February 2020, the School was informed by the police that Mr Hart had been charged with an offence of “sexual activity with a girl 13-17”. On 14 April 2020, Mr Hart pleaded not guilty to this offence at Birmingham Crown Court. A disciplinary hearing at the School took place on 26 June 2020. A referral was made to the TRA on 22 July 2020. On 4 April 2022, Mr Hart entered a guilty plea to one offence of sexual activity with a girl 13-17 (abuse of position of trust). On 22 May 2022, Mr Hart received a 3-year community order. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 4 April 2022 you were found guilty of one count of sexual activity with a female aged 13-17 (abuse of position of trust), contrary to s.16 Sexual Offences Act 2003. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (“the Advice”) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel was provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from the Birmingham Crown Court dated 1 March 2023, which detailed that Mr Hart had been convicted of one count of sexual activity with a girl 13 to 17 – adult abuse of position of trust contrary to section 16 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and was sentenced to a 3 year community sentence order, ordered to undertake all rehabilitation activity requirements directed by an authorised provider of probation for 30 days, placed on the sexual offenders register for a period of 5 years and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years. 7 On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that no exceptional circumstances applied. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel was therefore satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Hart, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Hart was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Hart’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting as Mr Hart was convicted of engaging in sexual activity with a child and, specifically, a pupil of the School at which he taught. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Hart’s behaviour in committing the offence could undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. His conduct ran 8 counter to what should have been at the very core of his practice as a teacher with a duty of care towards children. The panel noted that Mr Hart’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment. However, this was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity, which the Advice states is more likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel considered that the offence was