Mr Adam Jeffrey James

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: Mr Adam Jeffrey James

Teacher reference number: 1244300

Teacher's date of birth: 21 June 1990

Location teacher worked: Stoke on Trent, west midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 to 15 June 2022

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 Adam Jeffery James, formerly employed in Stoke on Trent, 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.

Mr Adam James Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Adam James Teacher ref number: 1244300 Teacher date of birth: 21 June 1990 TRA reference: 17670 Date of determination: 13 June 2022 Former employer: Ormiston Meridian Academy and St Margaret Ward Catholic Academy, Stoke on Trent Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Adam James. The panel members were Ms Maxine Cole (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Michelle Chappell (teacher panellist) and Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr James was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 14 April 2022. It was alleged that Mr James was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: Whilst employed as a Maths teacher at Ormiston Meridian Academy; 1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A on one or more occasions prior to her leaving the Academy in or around mid-2015, in that he deliberately touched her leg during one or more tutoring sessions; 2. He engaged in and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A after she had left the Academy in or around mid-2015, in that he; a. exchanged emails with her on one or more occasions, including via a personal email account; b. sent her one or more messages via email and/or social media which included; i. comments of a flirtatious and/or sexual nature; ii. pictures of his penis and/or videos depicting masturbation; iii. requests for her to send him pictures of her; c. met with her on one or more occasions; d. engaged in sexual activity with her on one or more occasions between February 2016 and October 2017; e. engaged in sexual intercourse with her on one or more occasions between October 2016 and October 2017; 3. His behaviour as may be found proven; a. at allegation 1 above was sexually motivated; b. at allegation 2 above was sexually motivated and/or conduct of a sexual nature. In his response to the notice of referral, Mr James denied allegation 1 and denied that such behaviour as may be found proven was sexually motivated. He admitted allegation 2 a but denied allegations 2b and 2c. With respect to what his now allegation 2d, in his response to the notice of referral, Mr James admitted having engaged in sexual activity with Pupil A on one or more occasions between October 2016 and October 2017 and admitted that this was sexually motivated and/or conduct of a sexual nature. Mr James 5 accepted that those facts he had admitted amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr James has provided no response to the current allegations contained within the notice of proceedings which now includes allegation 2e that he engaged in sexual intercourse with Pupil A. That allegation did not form part of the earlier allegations contained within the notice of referral. In the absence of a response to this allegation, Mr James was not taken to have admitted it. Preliminary applications The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new Teacher Misconduct Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession were published in May 2020 (the “May 2020 Procedures”). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the Teacher misconduct disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession updated in April 2018 (the “April 2018 Procedures”) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. The presenting officer indicated there were three applications for the panel to consider: 1. Whether to proceed in Mr James’ absence; 2. Whether to admit a supplementary bundle of documents; and 3. Whether to amend the allegations. Application to admit documents Before deciding whether to proceed in Mr James’ absence, the panel decided to admit a 20 page supplementary bundle of documents consisting of correspondence with Mr James regarding the hearing, an attendance note of a call with Mr James and correspondence with Mr James regarding proposed amendments to the allegations. The panel considered that it was fair to admit such documents in order that it could properly assess the application to proceed in Mr James’ absence, and if it did so, in order to make a decision whether it would be fair to allow the Presenting Officer’s proposed amendment to the allegations. The documents were relevant to both applications. Proceeding in absence The panel considered whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr James. 6 The panel was satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraphs 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (“the Regulations”). Although the notice of proceedings dated 14 April 2022 was not sent to Mr James’ last known address, it was sent within a proposed bundle of documents sent to Mr James on 27 April 2022. Mr James had indicated within his response to the notice of referral dated 24 April 2020 that he waived his right to receive eight weeks’ notice of the hearing. Furthermore, a copy of the notice of proceedings was sent by the TRA to Mr James by email on 14 April 2022; Mr James had provided that email address as his contact address, and Mr James had used that email address to exchange emails with the TRA. The panel was also satisfied that the notice of proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the April 2018 Procedures. Whilst a letter dated 4 May 2022 informing Mr James of the change of panellist was also sent to a former address, it was also sent by email to the email address used by Mr James. Paragraph 4.14 of the April 2018 Procedures confirms that any change to the identity of panel members will not invalidate the notice of proceedings. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the April 2018 Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr James. The panel has taken as its staring point the principle from R v Jones 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 considering the question of fairness, the panel has recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In reaching its decision, the panel has noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones. The panel was satisfied that Mr James was aware of the proceedings. The notice of proceedings was sent to Mr James’ email address, that being the address Mr James had requested that correspondence be sent to. The letter sent on 27 April 2022 containing a bundle that included the notice of proceedings also confirmed the date upon which the case was due to be heard. This was sent by special delivery and a delivery receipt has been produced. No response has been received to either an email, nor a letter (for which a delivery receipt has also been produced), asking Mr James to confirm his attendance at the hearing, or if not, to confirm if he would be content for the hearing to proceed in his absence. An attendance note of the presenting officer confirmed that contact was made with Mr James on 9 June 2022, but given that it was not a convenient time for him to speak, arrangements were made to return the call. A number of attempts were made to contact Mr James subsequently, but there was no response, nor any facility to leave a voice message. Mr James provided responses to the Presenting Officer in December 7 2019 and March 2020 that indicated Mr James had sought a new career direction and did not intend to return to teaching. The panel was satisfied that Mr James had voluntarily absented himself for the hearing in the knowledge of when and how the hearing was taking place. The panel did not believe that there was any prospect that an adjournment might result in Mr James attending the hearing voluntarily. He has not made any request for an adjournment. The panel has the benefit of representations submitted by email from Mr James and his response to the notice of referral. The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon are to be called to give evidence which can be tested by questioning them. The p