Mr Andrew Beesley

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 Andrew Beesley

Teacher reference number: 0262773

Teacher's date of birth: 9 June 1981

Location teacher worked: Manchester, north west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 November 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 Andrew Beesley, formerly employed in

Manchester, 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 Andrew Beesley: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 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 8 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 Andrew Beesley Teacher ref number: 0262773 Teacher date of birth: 9 June 1981 TRA reference: 19290 Date of determination: 16 November 2022 Former employer: Crosslee Primary School, Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 16 November 2022 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Andrew Beesley. The panel members were Mrs Valerie Purnell-Simpson (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Jackie Hutchings (teacher panellist) and Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Rebecca Utton of Birketts 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 Beesley that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Beesley 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, Ms Ruth Miller of Fieldfisher LLP, Mr Beesley or any representative for Mr Beesley. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 1 November 2022. It was alleged that Mr Beesley was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 17 July 2019, he was convicted of three counts of sexual assault on a girl 13/14/15 woman 16 or over – no penetration, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Beesley admitted the facts of allegation 1, and that his behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Beesley on 8 February 2022. Preliminary applications There were no 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. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 1 to 2 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 3 to 18 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 19 to 22 5 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 23 to 125 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 Beesley on 8 February 2022. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Beesley for the allegations 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 Beesley commenced employment at Crosslee Primary School (‘the School’) as a teacher on 1 September 2003. On 11 April 2018, an incident took place where Mr Beesley was accused of sexual assault by a colleague. On 13 April 2018, Mr Beesley was arrested, cautioned and interviewed in relation to this incident. During the police interview, Mr Beesley denied the incident and stated that his colleague lied and had made up the allegations. On 17 July 2019, Mr Beesley was convicted of three counts of sexual assault on a girl 13/14/15/ woman 16 or over – no penetration, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 at Manchester Crown Court. Mr Beesley was sentenced on 2 September 2019, at Manchester Crown Court, to 12 months imprisonment to run concurrently on each offence. Further, Mr Beesley was made subject to an indefinite Restraining Order, a Sex Offenders Certificate for life and ordered to pay £140 Victims Surcharge. Mr Beesley’s employment at the School ended on 19 December 2019. 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: 6 1. On 17 July 2019, you were convicted of three counts of sexual assault on a girl 13/14/15 woman 16 or over – no penetration, contrary to section 3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Beesley on 8 February 2022. In that statement of agreed facts, Mr Beesley admitted the particulars of the allegation. Further, it was admitted the facts of the allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Manchester Crown Court, which detailed that Mr Beesley had been convicted of three counts of sexual assault on a girl 13/14/15/ woman 16 or over – no penetration. In respect of the allegation, Mr Beesley was sentenced at Manchester Crown Court on 2 September 2019 to 12 month’s imprisonment on each offence to run concurrently. In addition, he was made subject to a Sex Offenders Certificate for life, a Restraining Order for an indefinite period and was required to pay a victim surcharge of £140. It was documented that Mr Beesley may also be placed on the Barring List by the Disclosure and Barring Service. On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of the allegation were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Beesley, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Beesley 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 showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others 7 • 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 considered Mr Beesley’s conduct to be extremely serious and completely incompatible with the standards and behaviour expected of any member of the public, let alone a teacher who is placed in a position of trust. The panel concluded that the conduct of Mr Beesley was aggravated by the facts that the incidents took place on school premises and the victim in the case was a teacher at the School. Further, the panel considered the age and seniority difference between Mr Beesley and the teacher of significance and increased the level of breach of trust in this case. The panel noted that Mr Beesley was a senior member of the School’s staff, with a leadership role, whereas the teacher, who was the victim of the incidents, was relatively inexperienced. Having considered all the facts of the case, the panel considered that Mr Beesley’s actions and convictions were relevant to his profession as a teacher and him working in an education setting. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have had an impact on the safety or security of 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 Beesley’s behaviour in committing the offences 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 Beesley’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This was a case invol