Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

1578388

Teacher's date of birth:

26 February 1967

Location teacher worked:

St Albans, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel:

18 March 2019 to 26 March 2019

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 Stephen Jonese, formerly employed in St Albans, East of England.

The proceedings were held at Simulation Centre, Coventry University Technology Park, Coventry, CV1 2T at 9.30am on 18 March 2019 to 26 March 2019.

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 Stephen Jones: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary Applications 5 D. Summary of Evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 E. Decisions and reasons 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 22 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Dr Stephen Jones Teacher ref number: 1578388 Teacher date of birth: 26 February 1967 TRA reference: 14506 Date of determination: 26 March 2019 Former employer: St Columba’s College (“the College”), St Albans A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 18 March 2019 to 26 March 2019 at the Simulation Centre, Coventry University Technology Park, Coventry, CV1 2TT . The panel members were Mr Ian Carter (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist) and Mr Geoffrey Penzer (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Dean Hickey of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (solicitors). The presenting officer for the Agency was Ms Samantha Paxman of Browne Jacobson LLP (solicitors). Dr Stephen Jones was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 15 January 2019. It was alleged that Dr Stephen Jones was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He failed to maintain proper professional boundaries and/ or pursued an inappropriate relationship in respect of Pupil A in that he: a. agreed to become Pupil A’s confirmation sponsor; b. went on holiday with Pupil A and his family without informing the College: i. to Italy in August 2014; ii. to Canada in December 2014 and stayed for 5 days alone with Pupil A; iii. to Ireland in April 2015 and travelled back with Pupil A alone; c. gave lifts to Pupil A in his vehicle; d. had contact with Pupil A via telephone and/ or text message; e. took Pupil A away on day and/ or overnight trips on his own without informing the College and/ or allowed his parents to think that these were College trips f. stayed in the same hotel room as Pupil A whilst away on the trips described at 1e above. g. installed software on Pupil A’s computer to track his location and phone/ computer use and checked up on him h. arranged for private Counselling sessions for Pupil A on College premises without informing the College and/or seeking full parental consent; i. bought gifts for Pupil A; j. took Pupil A to the cinema; k. breached the terms of his suspension in that he had contact with Pupil A whilst suspended from his employment despite being warned not to do so; 2. He failed in his safeguarding responsibilities in relation to 1h above 3. He organised field trips and/ or extra-curricular activities without the College’s knowledge and/or following proper procedures (including having in place proper risk assessments and/or EV forms and/or parental consent); 5 4. He failed to maintain proper professional boundaries in respect of Pupil B in that he: a. communicated with him by text message; b. bought him gifts; c. bought him alcohol whilst on a trip to the New Forest without his parents’ consent; d. took Pupil B and other Pupils on a trip to New Forest without any other adult present and without informing the College and/or parents that no other adult would be present 5. He failed to maintain proper professional boundaries in respect of Pupil C in that he: a. bought him gifts; b. bought him alcohol on a trip to the New Forest without his parents’ consent; c. took Pupil C and other Pupils on a trip to New Forest without any other adult present and without informing the College and/or parents that no other adult would be present 6. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1 and/or 4 and/or 5 was sexually motivated. 7. His conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1b and/or 1e and/or 1h and/or 3 was dishonest. C. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Dr Jones. The panel was satisfied that TRA has complied with the service requirements of Regulation 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. 6 The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel further noted that sufficient notice (8 weeks) of the proceedings had been given, that the Notice of Proceedings was sent to the legal representative of Dr Jones who was instructed to take service and previous correspondence with the TRA indicated that the teacher did not intend to appear nor send legal representation to the hearing. The panel therefore considers that the teacher has waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was to take place. The panel has had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. Given that these proceedings commenced in 2015 when a referral to the TRA (then NCTL) was made, the panel determined that there was a strong public interest in proceeding without further delay. The panel saw no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending the hearing. The panel has had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel has had the benefit of contemporaneous documents previously submitted by the teacher and a statement addressing the allegations and proffering Dr Jones’ response. The panel was able to ascertain lines of the defence and tested the evidence in questioning witnesses, the panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence. Further, the panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, drawing upon its experience and taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel also noted that there were a considerable number of witnesses (10) due to give evidence at the hearing and that it would be inconvenient and distressing for them to return again. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and has accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. However, it considers that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of the hearing continuing . 7 Adjournment Application The panel considered a written application on behalf of the teacher for adjournment of the hearing on the grounds that the TRA had failed to fully comply with the directions for disclosure made on behalf of the Secretary of State dated 22 February 2019. The panel heard representations on Dr Jones’ application from the presenting officer and noted the witness statement of Individual A and its exhibits. The panel was persuaded that the College and the TRA had taken all reasonable steps to comply with the disclosure direction. The panel noted that once staff left the College, their emails were archived in an encrypted password-protected file. The panel heard that the College was not able to ascertain the password. The panel specifically noted that the College subsequently had sought the services of an IT expert, 7Safe. The panel accepted the written evidence in Individual A statement that the documents requested were irretrievable by commercially available means. The panel accepted Individual A evidence that the encryption could only probably be deciphered by law enforcement agencies. The panel therefore refused the Teacher’s Application on the grounds that the panel considered that the TRA and the College had complied with the directions for disclosure. The information which it was not able to obtain could not be said to be held by the College as it was stored on an encrypted server which was not accessible. The panel therefore determined that on the evidence presented to it, an adjournment would not facilitate any further disclosure. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 6 to 19 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 21 t