Dr Tom Kershaw

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 Tom Kershaw

Teacher reference number: 0981221

Teacher's date of birth: 08 February 1983

Location teacher worked: Devon, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel:17 July 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 Tom Kershaw, formerly employed in Devon, South West England.

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 Tom Kershaw: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2023 2 Contents Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 24 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 28 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Dr Tom Kershaw Teacher ref number: 0981221 Teacher date of birth: 08 February 1983 TRA reference: 0019752 Date of determination: 20 July 2023 Former employer: Ivybridge Community College, Devon Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 17 July 2023, to consider the case of Dr Tom Kershaw (“Dr Kershaw”). The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Maxine Cole (lay panellist) and Mr Brendan Stones (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Charles Drinnan of Kingsley Napley LLP. Dr Kershaw was present and was represented by was represented by Mr Nick Kennan of Counsel. The hearing took place in public and was recorded, save for parts of the hearing that were heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 2 May 2023. It was alleged that Dr Kershaw was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while employed as a teacher at Ivybridge Community College, Devon, England (the “School”): 1. On or around 29 June 2018, while attending the School Prom he: a. Was under the influence of alcohol; b. Engaged in a 'drinking game' with Year 13 boys; c. Had to be monitored by one or more colleagues given concerns about his behaviour. 2. On or around 29 June 2018, while attending the School Prom he: a. Slid his hand along Colleague A's body; b. Cupped and/or grabbed Colleague A's left breast; c. Said "if it wasn't for her wedding ring, I'd fuck her in a heartbeat", or words to that effect, in respect of Colleague A. 3. Between 2017 and 2018, he failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil B, in that he: a. Exchanged one or more emails with Pupil B which were unprofessional and/or inappropriate, including; i. On or around 23 June 2018 at 5.56pm, he emailed Pupil B stating he had to catch up on work which has "been poo", or words to that effect; ii. On or around 23 June 2018 at 21:21pm, he emailed Pupil B "I love getting a rise!" to which Pupil B responded "Yh me too that's the base of this entire friendship mate", to which he replied with an emoji with tongue out. iii. On or around 23 June 2018 at 5.51pm, he emailed Pupil B "I knew this would happen – leave school and forget about me. *sobs* "; iv. On or around 23 June 2018 at 5.10pm he emailed Pupil B "Well my dear, you're obviously hard to get over! Hehe!" v. he referred to Pupil B as 'hun' in your email of 19 June 2018 at 20.04pm where he said "Tell me something I don’t already know, hun!". vi. On or around 23 September 2017 at 12.57, he emailed Pupil B "[redacted] told me you tried to see me at lunch. Will make time for you on Monday. Promise. X". 5 b. Purchased jewellery for Pupil B. 4. His conduct as set out in allegation 2 and/or 3 was sexually motivated. Dr Kershaw admitted to the facts of allegations 1 and 2. Dr Kershaw admitted the facts in the sub headings of allegations 3(a)(i) to (vi) and 3(b), but denied that he failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries or that his conduct was unprofessional and/or inappropriate in respect of these allegations. Dr Kershaw denied the facts of allegation 4. Mr Kershaw accepted that for the admitted allegations, his behaviour may have constituted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Excluding the public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018 (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This followed a request by the teacher’s representative that any part of the hearing pertaining to Dr Kershaw ’s [REDACTED] should be heard in private. The panel also considered whether to exercise its discretion to exclude the public from any part of the hearing pertaining to Pupil B’s [REDACTED] and the circumstances arising from Pupil B’s [REDACTED]. The panel invited the presenting officer and teacher ’s representative for their submissions on the panel’s consideration whilst in private session. The presenting officer and teacher’s representative were satisfied that as Pupil B’s name was anonymised, there was limited risk of the pupil becoming identifiable by such [REDACTED] matters being disclosed in the public domain. The panel recognised that even though the pupil’s name had been anonymised, some individuals from the School could still identify the pupil. Therefore, the panel considered that is was in the interests of justice and public interest to exclude matters relating to Pupil B’s [REDACTED] from the public. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations (in respect of the teacher representative’s application) and 11(3)(a) of the Regulations (in respect of the panel’s consideration regarding Pupil B’s [REDACTED]). In addition, the panel determined to exercise its discretion under the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures (in respect of the teacher representative’s application) 6 and the first bullet point of paragraph 4.57 (in respect of the panel’s consideration regarding Pupil B’s [REDACTED]) that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request by the teacher ’s representative was a reasonable one given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s [REDACTED] being placed in the public domain. The panel also considered that it was reasonable to exclude the public from part of the hearing which related to Pupil B’s [REDACTED] given the concerns arising from the confidential matters relating to the pupil’s [REDACTED] being placed in the public domain, especially given that some individuals from the School could identify the pupil. The panel did not consider that there were any steps short of excluding the public from these parts of the hearing that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s [REDACTED] and Pupil B’s [REDACTED] . In respect of the teacher representative’s application, t he panel took account of a letter from Dr Kershaw’s [REDACTED] along with various references in his witness statement to his [REDACTED]. In respect of the considerations regarding Pupil B’s [REDACTED], the panel took into account the School notes from a meeting with Pupil B and the various references in email communications between Dr Kershaw and Pupil B regarding Pupil B’s [REDACTED] [REDACTED]. The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request and the determination in respect of Pupil B’s [REDACTED] ran co ntrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/ or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute . In the event that the case continues , any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. The panel considered that in the circumstances of this case that the public interest will be satisfied by these public announcements. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. Amendment to allegation 3(a) During the course of the hearing, when the panel was considering questions for Dr Kershaw, the panel examined the scope of allegation 3(a). The panel noted that allegation 3(a) contained the word “including” before particularising the sub allegations in 3( a)-(vi). The panel asked the presenting officer to clarify whether the wording of the allegation encompassed all email communications between Pupil B and Dr Kershaw within the bundle or whether the allegation was specifically referring to the sub allegations 3(a)(i)-(vi). 7 After taking instructions, the presenting officer confirmed that the wording of 3(a) included all of the email communications in the bundle between Pupil B and Dr Kershaw. The panel informed the parties that the panel may need to consider an amendment to the allegations given the fact that the oral evidence so far in the hearing had only been in relation to the particularised sub-allegations. The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. The panel suggested changing the wording of allegation 3(a) to remove the word “including” and replace it with “namely”. Before making an amendment, the panel was required to consider a