Mr Adam McCullagh

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

Teacher's name: Mr Adam McCullagh

Teacher reference number: 1687989

Teacher's date of birth: 19 September 1991

Location teacher worked: Merseyside, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 December to 13 December 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 McCullagh, formerly employed in Merseyside, North 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.

Mr Adam McCullagh: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Adam McCullagh Teacher ref number: 1687989 Teacher date of birth: 19 September 1991 TRA reference: 20125 Date of determination: 13 December 2023 Former employer: Haydock High School, Merseyside Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 11 December to 13 December 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Adam McCullagh. The panel members were Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gerry Wadwa (teacher panellist) and Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Natalie Kent of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Shaun Moran of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr McCullagh was not present but was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of The Reflective Practice. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 29 September 2023. It was alleged that Mr McCullagh was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as a teacher at Haydock High School (‘the School’): 1. Between 21 August 2020 and 26 September 2020 he: a. Messaged Student 1 via a personal social media (Instagram) account; b. Sent Student 1, one or more messages containing the text as set out in schedule A; c. Sent Student 1 one or more Snapchat messages containing the text and or images as described in Schedule B or words or images to that effect. 2. His conduct at 1 was sexually motivated. SCHEDULE A 1. ‘I’D SAY THAT I’D GOT OUT AND CELEBRATE WITH YOU BUT THAT MIGHT BE A BIT WEIRD HAHA X’. 2. ‘I KNOW ONE WAY I’D LIKE TO SHUT YOU UP’, and goes on to say ‘I TOLD YOU I WAS GOING TO SHUT YOU UP BUT IN A RUDE WAY’, and ‘I’LL STOP MY WEIRD MOOD BEFORE I GET MYSELF SACKED’ SCHEDULE B 1. ‘YOU KNOW WHAT ELSE IS HARD’ with an image of him with his hands down his pants. 2. ‘I’LL BE ROUND IN 30 MINS TO JOIN’ 3. ‘I’M AT YOURS NOW’, and ‘I’LL GIVE YOU THE BEST 30 MINS OF YOUR LIFE’. Mr McCullagh admitted the facts of allegations 1(a) and 1(b) and denied the facts of allegations 1(c) and 2, as set out in the response to the notice of referral form dated 30 March 2022. Further, in relation to the admitted facts, within the response to the notice of hearing, Mr McCullagh denied that his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the teacher’s representative for the admission of one additional document being a witness statement from Mr McCullagh. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the teacher’s representative in respect of the application. The teacher’s representative submitted that Mr McCullagh had only been legally represented for two weeks due to [redacted]. The presenting officer did not oppose the application. The panel considered the additional document was relevant and that there would be no prejudice to the TRA’s case in allowing the document to be considered. Accordingly, the document was added to the bundle. Agreement of witness evidence As a preliminary matter, the teacher’s representative submitted that the witness evidence and statements of Witness B and Individual C were unchallenged by the teacher and he therefore proposed that, unless there were matters which the panel intended to question those witnesses on, these witnesses could be agreed and not called. The panel considered that there was not likely to be any questions for Individual C and that her attending the hearing to give live evidence would not take the panel very much further in their consideration of the allegations. The panel therefore agreed that there was no need to call Individual C. However, the panel considered that there were potentially a number of clarification points and explanations from Witness B that would assist in the determination of the allegations and therefore determined that she should give oral evidence within the hearing. Amendment to allegation Prior to commencement of the hearing, the presenting officer and the teacher’s representative agreed to amend allegation 1(b) to correct a typographical error whereby the word “more” was missing from “one or more”. 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 7 to 36 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 37 to 48 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 49 to 632 • Section 5: Teacher Documents – pages 633 to 635 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Service bundle; • Witness statement of the teacher. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Student 1 • Individual A – [redacted] • Witness B – [redacted] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr McCullagh commenced employment at the School on 1 September 2017. On 30 September 2020, concerns were raised by two year 12 pupils regarding Mr McCullagh’s messaging to Student 1. 7 On 1 October 2020, [redacted] contacted the police and the School raising concerns about Mr McCullagh, and the School made a referral to the LADO. On 4 February 2021, a referral was made by the police to the CPS regarding Mr McCullagh. On 12 February 2021, Mr McCullagh was suspended from duty at the School. On 29 April 2021, the CPS returned the decision of no further action. On 15 June 2021, Mr McCullagh was invited to a disciplinary hearing, to take place on 30 June 2021. On 29 June 2021, Mr McCullagh resigned from the School. On 1 July 2021, concerns were referred to the TRA by the School. On 28 October 2021, a letter was sent to Mr McCullagh requesting observations in relation to allegations under investigation by the TRA. On 2 December 2021, a response was received from Mr McCullagh’s representative to the above letter. On 14 March 2022, the decision maker considered that there was a case to answer. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between 21 August 2020 and 26 September 2020 you: a. Messaged Student 1 via a personal social media (Instagram) account; b. Sent Student 1, one or more messages containing the text as set out in schedule A; c. You sent Student 1 one or more Snapchat messages containing the text and or images as described in Schedule B or words or images to that effect. The panel considered the witness statement of Mr McCullagh. 8 Mr McCullagh admitted that he had exchanged messages via Instagram with Student 1 and that he “should not have done that”. However, Mr McCullagh denied having sent any messages via Snapchat, stating that he does, “not use Snapchat”. The panel noted the witness statement and oral evidence of Student 1, who stated that [redacted], and Mr McCullagh was her [redacted]. Student 1 stated that on 20 August 2020, [redacted], Mr McCullagh sent her a message on Instagram wishing her the best for the future and told her that if she ever needed anything he was only around the corner. She stated that she expressed her thanks. Student 1 submitted that she was 16 at the time of these messages. Student 1 explained that she believed the Instagram account was Mr McCullagh as the profile picture was of him and [redacted], and the name of the account was his full name; [redacted]. She stated that the account was followed by people she had gone to school with. Student 1 submitted that in [redacted] she became a student at [redacted], and during this time she was sending and receiving messages daily with Mr McCullagh. She stated that these messages started out as messages about the School and [redacted]. Student 1 stated that on 26 September 2020, Mr McCullagh added her on Snapchat and began messaging her on there instead of Instagram. She submitted that she believed the Snapchat account was Mr McCullagh because, as with the Instagram account, the username was his full name; [redacted]. Student 1 stated that he had also sent her a Snapchat with his full face in view, but she does not recall when. She also stated that the topics of the conversations were also relevant to the School and people who had been in her class. Student 1 explained that the conversation topics vari