Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

1668400

Teacher's date of birth:

04 January 1990

Location teacher worked:

Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

15 to 19 July 2019

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 Alexander Day, formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 5 Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 15 July 2019.

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 Alexander Day: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2019 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 14 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 2 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Alexander Day Teacher ref number: 1668400 Teacher date of birth: 04 January 1990 TRA reference: 17472 Date of determination: 16 July 2019 Former employer: Nottingham Girls’ High School, Nottingham A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 15 July to 16 July 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Alexander Day. The panel members were Mr Tony Woodward (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Nicolé Jackson (lay panellist) and Dr Robert Cawley (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Claire Watson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Day was not present and was not represented at the hearing. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 3 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 5 April 2019. It was alleged that Mr Alexander Day was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher by Nottingham Girls’ High School (the “School”) he: 1. Engaged in and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil X between approximately January and May 2018 specifically by: a. exchanging emails with her, including one or more emails; i. which were sent late at night and/or at the weekend; ii. of a personal nature; iii. in which he informed Pupil X of where he would be/what he would be doing; b. communicating with her via ‘YouTube and/or ‘SoundCloud’; c. meeting with her outside of school on one or more occasions; d. allowing her to visit his flat on one or more occasions; e. buying a gift and/or gifts for her on one or more occasions; f. engaging in sexual activity with her on one or more occasions; 2. He deleted emails he had sent to Pupil X during the school’s investigation into his conduct; 3. His behaviour as may be found proven at: a. 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated; b. 2 above was dishonest and/or lacked integrity in that he was attempting to conceal the nature and/or extent of his communications and/or relationship with Pupil X from the school. Mr Day admitted the facts of allegations 1a.i. and 1a.ii. and that these admitted allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Day did not admit the facts of any other allegation. C. Preliminary applications The panel considered the following preliminary applications. Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Day. 4 The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took into account the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel was satisfied that the teacher was actually aware of the proceedings as more than 8 weeks’ notice had been given to the teacher and the teacher’s representative had responded and indicated that Mr Day would not be attending the hearing. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There is no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending the hearing. The teacher had also indicated through his representative that he was content for the hearing to proceed in his absence and without his legal representative present. The panel had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel had the benefit of written evidence from the teacher which included a written response to each of the allegations. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel also noted that there were witnesses present at the hearing, who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for them to return again. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and had accepted that fairness to the teacher was of prime importance. However, it considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that 5 on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing. Additional documents The presenting officer applied to admit the witness statement of Witness C. That document was not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether it should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer. The panel exercised caution in exercising this discretion given that it had determined to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that the document was relevant to the case and decided to admit the document. Given the absence of the teacher, the panel considered whether he had received the document and had sufficient opportunities to make representations about it. The panel had sight of an email from Mr Day’s representative acknowledging receipt of the witness statement and confirmation of their agreement to include it in the bundle. Anonymity of witnesses Paragraph 4.60 of the Procedures allowed the panel, if it considered it to be in the interests of justice, to decide that the name and identity of a witness, either referred to in the hearing papers or present before the panel to give oral evidence, should not be disclosed during the hearing or at all. The panel had taken into account the general rule that matters pertaining to these hearings should be held in public and took account of case law that states: “It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially. It can result in evidence becoming available which would not become available if the proceedings were conducted behind closed doors or with one or more of the parties’ or witnesses’ identity concealed. It makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely”. The panel had regard to whether the anonymity of the witnesses ran contrary to the public interest. The panel also had regard to the principle that limited interference with the public nature of the proceedings was preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel had decided that, in the circumstances where the allegations related to matters of a sexual nature, it was appropriate to anonymise the names of the pupil 6 witnesses. The panel noted that the TRA had alr