Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

0881791

Teacher's date of birth:

23 March 1987

Location teacher worked:

Tyne and Wear, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

17 to 18 November 2016 and 3 February 2017

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 Aaron Joseph Goodwin, formerly employed in Tyne and Wear, North East England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 17 to 18 November 2016 and 3 February 2017.

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 Aaron Joseph Goodwin: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2017 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 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: Mr Aaron Joseph Goodwin Teacher ref number: 0881791 Teacher date of birth: 23 March 1987 NCTL case reference: 14661 Date of determination: 3 February 2017 Former employer: Cardinal Hume School, Tyne and Wear A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 17 - 18 November 2016, and 3 February 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Aaron Joseph Goodwin. The panel members were Ms Janet Draper (lay panellist in the chair), Mr Brian Hawkins (teacher panellist) and Ms Hilary Jones (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Tom Walker of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ben Chapman of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Goodwin was represented by Mr Brocklehurst of Chambers Solicitors. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 16 August 2016. It was alleged that Mr Aaron Joseph Goodwin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Whilst employed as a supply teacher at [a School in Gateshead] in 2014, and whilst on the school's premises, he: a. Accessed the social media dating application Grindr; b. Contacted a member of the public using Grindr; c. Invited a member of the public to meet him in a toilet using Grindr; d. Informed a member of the public in a Grindr message that he had a sexual relationship with a 12-year-old child. 2. In doing allegation 1. above he acted in breach of the school's policy. 3. On or around 20 August 2014, he sent messages to Individual A on Skype in which he: a. Received videos including but not limited to videos called: i. Boy Scout fuck fest; ii. Young boy and man suck each other; iii. Boy 12 cums with sound. b. Requested that Individual A re-send him videos. 4. On or around 1 May 2013, he sent messages to Individual B on Skype in which he: a. Stated that he was a teacher; b. Stated that he was sexually attracted to male pupils at his school; c. Stated that he masturbated at work; d. Asked if he was into lads in their early teens; e. Asked him to masturbate for him and told him to think of your "hot pupils". 5. In doing the conduct at allegations 1. and/or 3. and 4. above his actions were sexually motivated. Mr Goodwin does not admit the facts of the case. C. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. 5 However, after Mr Goodwin had given evidence in chief, Mr Chapman made an application on behalf of the National College to adjourn the case. This was on the basis that Mr Goodwin had given a more detailed account in his evidence than had been set out in an earlier written response produced by his solicitors on 17 March 2016. Mr Goodwin had also named a third party in his evidence for the first time as an individual who may have been responsible for the matters of which he stands accused. Mr Chapman requested an adjournment to enable further enquiries to be made and further documents to be obtained, to include a full transcript of the police interview of Mr Goodwin, which took place on 28 February 2015, and a summary of which was contained within the papers before the panel. Alternatively, Mr Chapman proposed that this application to adjourn the proceedings could be reviewed at the conclusion of Mr Goodwin's evidence. The application to adjourn prior to the conclusion of Mr Goodwin's evidence was opposed by Mr Brocklehurst on the basis of fairness to Mr Goodwin, who was still on oath and in the process of giving evidence. Decision relating to application to adjourn on 17 November 2016 The panel made the following decision. The panel has carefully considered the application of the NCTL to adjourn this case to make further enquiries and obtain further evidence, to include a full transcript of the police interview. The NCTL has submitted an adjournment would be preferable now and before any cross- examination of Mr Goodwin, but may renew an application following cross-examination. Mr Brocklehurst for Mr Goodwin has opposed the application to adjourn at this stage and refers to fairness to Mr Goodwin and also the impact of an adjournment on him. The panel is mindful that an adjournment will have an impact upon Mr Goodwin. The main consideration for the panel is whether an adjournment is fair and appropriate at this stage. The panel accepts that a full transcript of the police interview may be relevant to this case. This is particularly so in the circumstances where Mr Goodwin's case has not been fully set out prior to giving evidence today. However, the panel is not satisfied that adjourning at this stage would be fair or appropriate. The panel has a summary of the interview and Mr Goodwin has already given evidence about this. The panel is of the view that Mr Goodwin can be cross-examined on the basis of the evidence before it today without prejudice to either the NCTL or Mr Goodwin. In terms of the third party named by Mr Goodwin, the panel is mindful that allegations have been made against the third party. This is not a matter for determination by the panel at this stage, such matters are questions for consideration by other agencies. 6 The decision to proceed at this stage will be kept under review on the basis of appropriateness and fairness in all the circumstances, which will include the issue of the third party mentioned by Mr Goodwin. Further Decision of 17 November 2016 Following conclusion of Mr Goodwin's evidence the panel sought submissions from both parties as to the next stage in proceedings and whether they were in a position to make closing submissions or whether further time was required. Mr Brocklehurst and Mr Chapman both submitted that further time was required for any closing submissions. Both parties were also in agreement that a full copy of the police interview transcript would be of assistance to the panel. Mr Brocklehurst also informed the panel that, notwithstanding the fact that this case had been listed for 2 days, he was unavailable to attend the following day, 18 November 2016. Mr Brocklehurst then suggested making written submissions, but was unable to do this overnight. In turn, Mr Chapman suggested the National College may wish to make written submissions. Given the agreement of both parties that an adjournment would be appropriate to make further inquiries such as to obtain the transcript of the police interview; and to make further submissions in relation to this matter; the panel agreed in accordance with the Disciplinary Procedures at 4.54 that an adjournment was fair and appropriate. The panel also indicated that it would deliberate further for the purposes of making directions for the future progression of the case, to include consideration of the format of closing submissions. Decision of 18 November 2016 The panel has deliberated in private and considered carefully the submissions made by the parties in this case in relation to the adjournment of this matter on 17 November 2016. The panel has considered the case as presented by the National College, and also the evidence of Mr Goodwin and the submissions made on his behalf. The panel has considered carefully the future progression of this case, and is of the view that it would be of assistance if the full transcript of the police interview, or a DVD of the same, was made available prior to closing submissions. This material would provide clarity as to which questions Mr Goodwin was asked by the police, and is relevant to the case. Both parties had been in agreement that this evidence would assist the case. The panel would also be assisted by clarification from the National College as to the format of the two Skype conversations giving rise to Allegations 3-5 and an explanation for the non-consecutive timings of individual elements of the conversations. This issue was raised as a concern by Mr Goodwin and the panel shares those concerns. 7 Clarification of this issue may assist in resolving those concerns. The panel has had regard to the Teacher misconduct - Disciplinary procedures for the regulation of the teaching profession, ”the Procedures” in relation to the admissibility, inspection and service of evidence at paragraph 4.18 - 4.26 and is of the view that the police transcript or DVD would be relevant and its admissibility would on the face of it be fair subject of course to any further submissions from the parties. Similarly, clarification of the query above in relation to the Skype conversations would be relevant and any evidence clarifying this issue would be admissible on the same basis. The panel directs that the National College seeks to obtain the police transcript/DVD and clarification of the Skype conversations. The panel is of the view that this material can be obtained by the National College in pursuance of its regulatory functions. The panel envisages that the parties will liaise in relation to these matters and any further disputes can either be resolved in advance of the resumed hearing, or if this is not possible, dealt with in submissions at the resumed heari