Mr Adam Jones

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 Jones

Teacher reference number: 1584664

Teacher's date of birth: 20 November 1992

Location teacher worked: Hull, East Yorkshire

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 August 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 Mr Adam Jones, formerly employed in Hull, East Yorkshire.

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 Jones: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Adam Jones Teacher ref number: 15/84664 Teacher date of birth: 20/11/1992 TRA reference: 19875 Date of determination: 25 August 2023 Former employer: Malet Lambert School, Hull Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by virtual means on 25 August 2023 to consider the case of Mr Adam Jones. The panel members were Ms Jackie Hutchings (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Kulvinder Sandal (teacher panellist) and Mr Carl Lygo (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Jones that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Jones provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted the conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Laura Vignoles of Kingsley Napley LLP, or Mr Jones. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 5 June 2023. It was alleged that Mr Jones was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 6 October 2021, he was convicted of two counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, contrary to s.1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel noted that Mr Jones had admitted the allegations and further admitted that he was convicted of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Initial Letter to the Teacher, Notice of Referral, Response and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 18b Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 19 to 22 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 23 to 67 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Jones on 22 May 2023. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Jones for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be 5 considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Jones was employed as a teacher by Malet Lambert School (“the School”) from 2018. On 25 February 2021, Mr Jones was arrested by Humberside Police following an allegation of taking or making or distributing indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children. On 26 February 2021, Humberside Police referred Mr Jones to the TRA. On 1 June 2021, Mr Jones resigned from his position at the School. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 1. On 6 October 2021, you were convicted of two counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, contrary to s.1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The allegation was admitted by Mr Jones in the statement of agreed facts that he signed on 22 May 2023. The statement of agreed facts also confirmed the following facts: Mr Jones had used Snapchat to download indecent images of children which led to his arrest on 25 February 2021. In his police interview, Mr Jones admitted possession of indecent photographs of children. Mr Jones also admitted being sexually interested in females aged 13 years and upwards. Mr Jones also attended an interview with the School in which he; (a) admitted accessing child pornography on Snapchat, (b) stated that he was interested in children aged 13-17 years, (c) stated that images of younger children had been shared with him but he had not looked at them, and/or (d) stated that in his view, what he was doing was completely separate to work. On 6 October 2021, Mr Jones indicated that he intended to plead guilty to two offences contrary to s.1(1)(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The charges related to: 10 Category A images; and/or 87 Category C images. Mr Jones was convicted on 6 October 2021. On 17 November 2021, Mr Jones was sentenced at Humber Magistrates’ Court to a community order with a rehabilitation activity requirement of 20 days to be completed before 16 May 2023. Mr Jones was also placed on the sex offenders’ register for a period of 5 years. 6 The panel has seen the memorandum of conviction and accepted it as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the convictions. The panel has also seen an extract of the police national computer record confirming the conviction. The panel found this allegation proven. Findings as to a conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to convictions of a relevant offence. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Jones in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Jones was in breach of the following standards: Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including … the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect … Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. Whilst the panel noted that Mr Jones had stated that he had not committed the offending behaviour during his working hours at the School, the offence committed was a serious offence that involved children. The panel noted that Mr Jones had admitted being sexually interested in young females aged 13 years upwards and considered that this was harmful to children in an education setting. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of children, pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Jones’ behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to 7 affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Jones was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Jones’ behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. However, the panel noted that the magistrates’ court still found it necessary to impose a community order, a victim surcharge, and to impose that Mr Jones was placed on the sex offenders’ register, as opposed to a discharge. This was a case concerning an offence involving any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such offences is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. These were particularly serious offences. Mr Jones admitted that he was sexually interested in young females from age 13 years upwards. The panel noted that Mr Jones had pleaded guilty to the offences with which he was charged. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to his convictions was relevant to Mr Jones’ fitness to be a teacher. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the ser