Dr Jon Axl Rivers

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 Jon Axl Rivers

Teacher reference number: 1138606

Teacher's date of birth: 19 March 1980

Location teacher worked: Isleworth, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 to 19 January 2024 and 26 February to 1 March 2024

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 Jon Axl Rivers formerly employed in Isleworth, London.

Dr Jon Axl Rivers: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 16 Documents 16 Witnesses 17 Decision and reasons 17 Findings of fact 19 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 32 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 35 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Dr Jon Axl Rivers Teacher ref number: 1138606 Teacher date of birth: 19 March 1980 TRA reference: 19530 Date of determination: 22 March 2024 Former employer: The Green School for Girls, Isleworth Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened to consider the case of Dr Jon Axl Rivers on: 15 to 19 January 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT; 26 February to 1 March 2024 at Novotel London Waterloo, 113 Lambeth Road, London SE1 7LS; and 20 to 22 March 2024 on Microsoft Teams. The panel members were Ms Julia Hyde (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist), and Mr Dara Islam (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Dr Rivers was present and was not represented although he was supported by [REDACTED] Witness E. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 3 November 2023. It was alleged that Dr Rivers was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. In or around October 2014, whilst employed as a Teacher at Mildenhall College he stored a pointed bladed article in an unlocked classroom drawer; 2. In or around 5 May 2019, provided inaccurate information in his application for employment at the Green School for Girls in that he answered ‘no’ to the question ‘have you been the subject of any disciplinary action in your current or previous position or had any allegations made’, when this was not the case; 3. His conduct at paragraph 2 was: a) Dishonest; and b) Demonstrated a lack of integrity. Dr Rivers denied the allegations and denied that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application for reasonable adjustments relating to Dr Rivers’ [REDACTED] During the hearing, Dr Rivers stated that he had [REDACTED]. At various intervals he stated that [REDACTED]. Dr Rivers did not produce any [REDACTED] evidence in respect of these matters, however the panel granted various adjustments including: (a) allowing Witness E to be present as a support (see below); (b) frequent breaks/adjournments; (c) permitting Dr Rivers to present his case in the way in which he wished to do so, notwithstanding that it was not in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’) or normal practice; and (d) [REDACTED]. 5 Day 1: 15 January 2024 On the first day of the hearing, Dr Rivers raised five preliminary matters, as follows: Application for the admission of additional documents Dr Rivers brought sets of hard copy documents with him to the hearing and presented them to the panel and presenting officer. Each set of hard copy documents comprised of: • A 625-page bundle of documents entitled “exhibit bundle”. • A 315-page bundle of documents entitled “defence case submission for Tribunal”. • A bundle of documents entitled “opening statement for defence” comprised of a 3-page opening statement, preliminary applications and documents relevant to the Dr Rivers’ preliminary applications. The “exhibit bundle” and preliminary applications had been provided in advance of the hearing. Other documents, including the “defence case submission for Tribunal” and the “opening statement for defence”, had not. Dr Rivers also brought two CD-ROMS which contained video footage of a [REDACTED] interview with him, which he intended for the panel to view during the course of the hearing. The panel was satisfied that the additional documents and footage were relevant and added them to the documents it considered, in accordance with paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures. Application for unredacted copy of witness statement to be used The panel considered an application from Dr Rivers for an unredacted copy of Witness A’s [REDACTED] witness statement to be admitted as evidence. The panel heard representations from Dr Rivers and the presenting officer in respect of the application. The presenting officer did not object to the admission of the unredacted copy of the witness statement. The panel was satisfied that the unredacted copy of Witness A’s [REDACTED] witness statement should be admitted as evidence. Application for discontinuance Dr Rivers submitted a written application entitled “Notice of contempt for proceedings by prosecution & N1 application for costs” and provided oral submissions in respect of this application. 6 The application was effectively a discontinuance application; Dr Rivers asked the panel to discontinue the case and relied upon the following grounds: • The process has been manipulated by the TRA and/or presenting officer firm in bad faith. In respect of this ground Dr Rivers primarily referred to separate High Court proceedings [REDACTED]. He asserted that the TRA and/or presenting officer firm had interfered with and influenced witnesses within the High Court and deliberately withheld evidence from the High Court which, he said, resulted in a miscarriage of justice. • It was not possible for him to have a fair hearing on the basis that the TRA and/or presenting officer firm had not confirmed, in respect of allegation 2, what “allegations” it asserts Dr Rivers should have disclosed on his application form. The presenting officer objected to the application. He submitted that there had been no abuse of process and Dr Rivers could have a fair hearing. He submitted that there was a clear prima facie case in respect of the allegations and Dr Rivers had been in receipt of the TRA’s documents, and therefore on notice of the TRA’s case, for some time. The panel carefully considered the application, the submissions it heard and the legal advice it received. In respect of the first element of Dr Rivers’ application, the panel noted the High Court proceedings were entirely separate to these proceedings. Insofar as the panel was aware, the TRA and presenting officer firm were not interested parties in those proceedings. There was no evidence before the panel that the TRA and/or presenting officer firm had influenced or manipulated the High Court proceedings or, indeed, had any material involvement in the High Court proceedings. The panel was not therefore persuaded that these proceedings should be discontinued on the grounds that the TRA and/or presenting officer firm had interfered with or withheld evidence from the High Court proceedings. In respect of the second element of Dr Rivers’ application, the panel considered it unhelpful that the TRA had not clarified allegation 2 in advance of, or during, the hearing. The panel also considered it unfortunate that, as a result of this, Dr Rivers had spent a considerable amount of time collating numerous documents on the basis that allegation 2 might refer to all conceivable “allegations”. Whilst the panel considered allegation 2 could have been set out more clearly, it was satisfied that the TRA’s case was sufficiently clear and that it had been understood by Dr Rivers. The panel did not consider this issue sufficiently serious so as to undermine the fairness of the hearing or offend its sense of justice. The panel also noted Dr Rivers’ rigorous preparation of his case which, in the panel’s view, meant he was in a position to understand and defend the case put by the TRA. 7 The panel did not grant Dr Rivers’ application for discontinuance. Application for special measures The panel considered a special measures application from Dr Rivers to allow an independent person to cross examine him on behalf of the TRA on the basis that he felt intimidated by the presenting officer, Mr Bridges. The panel was aware that, under paragraph 5.103 of the 2020 Procedures, it may adopt such measures as it considers appropriate to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable witness. The panel noted that paragraph 5.102 of the 2020 Procedures states: “A person is a vulnerable witness if the quality of the person’s evidence is likely to be adversely affected at a professional conduct panel hearing, including any medical or physical impairment and if the witness requires special consideration…”. The panel also noted paragraph 5.102(v) refers to a witness who complains of intimidation. The panel heard representations from Dr Rivers and the presenting officer in respect of the application. The presenting officer objected to the application. The panel understood that Mr Bridges, was attending the hearing in his professional capacity as an advocate presenting the TRA’s case on its behalf. It understood he was subject to professional regulation himself. It appeared to the panel that Dr Rivers’ assertion of “intimidation” related to the way in which the TRA had put its case, rather than any specific conduct from Mr Bridges. It noted that any substitute advocate on behalf of the TRA would find themselves in the same position presenting the case in accordance with the TRA’s instructions. At the point at which it det