Mr Alan Harbottle

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 Alan Harbottle

Teacher reference number: 9760765

Teacher's date of birth: 8 June 1972

Location teacher worked: Liverpool, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 6 March 2025

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 Harbottle formerly employed in Liverpool, 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 Alan Harbottle: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Alan Harbottle Teacher ref number: 9760765 Teacher date of birth: 8 June 1972 TRA reference: 22580 Date of determination: 6 March 2025 Former employer: Mosspits Lane Primary School, Liverpool Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 6 March 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Alan Harbottle. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Olivia Kong (lay panellist) and Mrs Julie Wells (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons 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 Harbottle that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Harbottle provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Emma Dowd of Capsticks Solicitors or Mr Harbottle. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 19 February 2025. It was alleged that Mr Harbottle was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 1 June 2023, he was convicted at Southend on Sea Magistrates’ Court of: a. Attempted to engage in sexual communication with a child contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2023, s 15A(1), and b. Attempting to meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s15. Mr Harbottle admitted the alleged facts and that he had been convicted of relevant offences. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: List of key people – page 3 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 4 to 20 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 21 to 25 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – 26 to 36 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 37 to 38 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Notice of meeting dated 19 February 2025; 5 Letter dated 4 March 2025 informing Mr Harbottle that the professional conduct panel meeting had been rescheduled and new panellists appointed. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Harbottle on 24 October 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Harbottle for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be 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 Harbottle was a class teacher at Mosspits Lane Primary School (“the School”) from 1 September 2011. On 31 May 2023, Mr Harbottle was arrested for sexual communication with a child. On 1 June 2023, Mr Harbottle appeared in court. On 5 June 2023, Mr Harbottle was then suspended from his position at the School. On 15 September 2023, the School held a disciplinary hearing and Mr Harbottle was dismissed. 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: 1. On or around 1 June 2023 you were convicted at Southend on Sea Magistrates’ Court of: a. Attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s15A(1), and 6 b. Attempting to meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s15. Mr Harbottle admitted the facts of the convictions in the Statement of Agreed Facts. Mr Harbottle admitted that he had been contacted by Essex Police following a police sting operation whereby Mr Harbottle communicated with officers posing as a 14-year-old boy. He admitted that this had involved the exchange of sexualised nude images and discussion of sexual acts. He admitted that he organised a meeting with the 14-year-old boy as he believed. The panel had sight of the certificate of conviction confirming Mr Harbottle’s convictions as alleged. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by those convictions. The panel noted that the certificate of conviction stated that Mr Harbottle had been sentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment suspended for 24 months. He was ordered to participate in a sexual offender programme for 30 days; to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement for 25 days; [REDACTED]. He was subject to a notification period of 10 years and a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years. The panel noted the sentencing remarks provided some details of Mr Harbottle’s actions that led to his convictions. These stated that in around late May 2023, Mr Harbottle struck up a conversation on a legal internet dating application with someone he believed to be over the age of 18. It became apparent fairly quickly that the person with whom he was speaking (a decoy police officer) purported to be 14 and the conversation moved to a more private forum. Sexualised photographs were exchanged at Mr Harbottle’s behest and the conversation led swiftly to discussions about “specific and highly intimate sexual behaviour”. The Judge stated “It’s clear that you knew what you were doing, you made that obvious by the sense of some form of self-awareness during the course of those exchanges, and obviously that what you were doing was wholly wrong…” The Judge stated that “nonetheless, you persisted, and so it was that you went to meet, what you believed to be, a 14-year-old boy… It must have been in your head, that there was a possibility you might have sexual activity with him…”. Based on Mr Harbottle’s admission and the certificate of conviction the panel found the allegations proven. Findings as to 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 conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. 7 The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Harbottle in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Mr Harbottle in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Harbottle 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 • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • 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 Mr Harbottle’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting. Mr Harbottle’s actions indicated that he sought to meet a child he had groomed. He did this despite full knowledge of his safeguarding obligations having been a safeguarding officer. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of a child (had the person not been a police officer decoy). The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Harbottle’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Harbottle’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 8 This was a case conc