Dr Adrian Reilly

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: Dr Adrian Reilly

Teacher reference number: 9806938

Teacher's date of birth: 5 October 1969

Location teacher worked: Sutton Coldfield, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 and 23 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 Dr Adrian Reilly, formerly employed in Sutton Coldfield, 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.

Dr Adrian Reilly: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 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 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Dr Adrian Reilly Teacher ref number: 9806938 Teacher date of birth: 5 October 1969 TRA reference: 19495 Date of determination: 23 August 2023 Former employer: Bishop Vesey’s Grammar School, West Midlands Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 22 to 23 August 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Dr Adrian Reilly. The panel members were Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist) and Ms Hannah Foster (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louise Ravenscroft of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Dr Reilly was present and was represented by Mr Jim Denham of NASUWT. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 9 June 2023. It was alleged that Dr Reilly was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On 12 March 2020 he made inappropriate and/or racist comments to a class of [REDACTED] students about two students who had left the classroom. 2. On 16 March 2020 he uploaded an inappropriate image to a Microsoft Teams chat viewable and/or intended to be viewed by [REDACTED] Students. 3. He posted an inappropriate and/or obscene comment with the image referred to at allegation 2 above. 4. By his conduct at any or all of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 above he failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the School. Dr Reilly admitted the facts of allegations 1 to 4, and further admitted that those facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as stated in the response to the notice of hearing dated 6 July 2023. Preliminary applications Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the teacher’s representative for the admission of an additional document. The teacher’s document was his undated statement. The document subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the document should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the teacher’s representative in respect of the application. The presenting officer did not object to the inclusion of the teacher’s document. 5 The panel considered the additional document was relevant in that it brought together content of previous statements in one document. The panel also found that admitting the document was appropriate and in the interests of a fair hearing. Accordingly, the document was added to the end of the bundle. 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 1 to 3 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 4 to 33 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 34 to 39 • Section 4: TRA witness statements – pages 40 to 54 • Section 5: TRA documents – pages 55 to 490 • Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 491 to 511 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Undated statement from the teacher – pages 512 to 513. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses Dr Reilly was present and gave oral evidence at the hearing, which included him reading his undated statement that the panel decided to admit. No other 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. Dr Reilly commenced employment as a teacher of economics and business studies at Bishop Vesey’s Grammar School (‘the School’) on 1 September 2013. Dr Reilly was later 6 promoted to assistant headteacher of sixth form, on 1 September 2015, whilst continuing to work as a teacher. Dr Reilly also later became the temporary head of economics and business studies on 24 April 2017, until 13 March 2020. On 13 March 2020, the School received a complaint from Pupil A concerning Dr Reilly’s comments to a class of [REDACTED] students which are alleged to have been inappropriate and racist. The headteacher and HR were notified of the complaint and the School obtained statements from the class. On 16 March 2020, the School’s investigatory meeting into allegation 1 was adjourned until his union representative could be present. The School instructed Dr Reilly to work from home. Dr Reilly later uploaded an image with a comment in a group chat with [REDACTED] students on Microsoft Teams (‘MS Teams’) which was alleged to have been inappropriate. The School’s investigatory meeting with Dr Reilly took place on 18 March 2020. The School obtained accounts from Pupil A, Person W and Pupil G via telephone in relation to allegation 1. Dr Reilly was suspended from duty pending an investigation on 19 March 2020. The School was also notified of allegation 2 and 3 by Individual B. The School obtained statements from Individual A, Individual B, Pupil D, Pupil E and Pupil F, in relation to allegation 2 and 3, on 20 March 2020. Dr Reilly submitted his statement to the School in relation to both allegation 1 and allegation 2, on 30 April 2020. On 1 May 2020, the School’s investigatory meeting with Dr Reilly took place. Dr Reilly provided a second statement on 8 June 2020. A disciplinary hearing was held on 9 June 2020. Dr Reilly was dismissed from employment with immediate effect and without notice on the same day. An appeal hearing took place on 7 July 2020, and the decision was upheld. The matter was referred to the TRA on 10 July 2020. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: The panel noted the signed statement of agreed facts which was signed by Dr Reilly on 20 April 2022, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 6 May 2022. In the signed statement of agreed facts, Dr Reilly admitted the facts of the allegations. 7 1. On 12 March 2020 you made inappropriate and/or racist comments to a class of [REDACTED] students about two students who had left the classroom. On 13 March 2020, the School became aware of an incident that had occurred on the previous day, when Dr Reilly had allegedly made inappropriate, unprofessional and discriminatory comments about two pupils who had left the classroom. During an afternoon lesson on 12 March 2020, which Dr Reilly was delivering to [REDACTED] students, Pupil A and Pupil G left the lesson early to [REDACTED]. Pupil A and Pupil G are described [REDACTED], and one of the pupils is said to [REDACTED]. Dr Reilly admitted that on 12 March 2020, he made a comment to a class of [REDACTED] students about two students who had left the class: “look at that coat – it’s the kind of coat a terrorist could hide a bomb vest under” or words to that effect. Dr Reilly stated that his comment was not intended to be racist, but he accepted that it could be perceived as being racist and was inappropriate. The panel noted the witness statement of Individual C, headteacher at the School. Individual C submitted that, on 5 May 2020, he completed an investigation report relating to a number of concerns which had been raised about Dr Reilly. The first concern was that he had made inappropriate and racist comments about Pupil A and Pupil G during a lesson on 12 March 2020. The second concern was that Dr Reilly uploaded a sexually indecent image to a School Microsoft Teams account in an electronic chat containing students. Individual C explained that the concern involving Pupil A and Pupil G first arose when Pupil A submitted a letter of complaint on 13 March 2020 to Mr Goodwin, assistant headteacher in charge of sixth form. Mr Goodwin forwarded the letter to Dr Reilly. Pupil A complained that he had been informed by other students of a comment made by Dr Reilly about him and Pupil G after they had left Dr Reilly’s economics class on 12 March 2020. The comment was “who would give them two a job, they look like a bunch of terrorists… they look like they have vests on” or words to that effect. Individual C stated that, as a serious allegation had been made by a pupil, he undertook a fact finding exercise to establish that there were reasonable grounds for a full investigation. Individual C met with Dr Reilly on 18 March 2020, with a union representative. Dr Reilly said that he had made a general comment when looking out the window, to no one in particular, as follows: “look at that stupid coat, it is the kind of thing you c