Andrew Boreland

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: Andrew Boreland

Teacher reference number: 1882276

Teacher's date of birth: 22 October 1993

Location teacher worked: Bishop Auckland, North East

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 April 2024

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 Boreland, formerly employed in Bishop Auckland, North East.

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 Boreland: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Application made on 23 January 2024 4 Applications made on 22 April 2024 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Andrew Boreland Teacher ref number: 1882276 Teacher date of birth: 22 October 1993 TRA reference: 20285 Date of determination: 22 April 2024 Former employer: Bishop Barrington School, Bishop Auckland Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 22 to 25 January, and 22 April 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Andrew Boreland. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Karen Graham (teacher panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lucy Churchill of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Thomas Sherrington of St Johns’ Buildings on 22 to 25 January 2024. On 22 April 2024 the presenting officer for the TRA was Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson. Mr Boreland was present and was not represented on 22 to 25 January 2024. Mr Boreland was not present and was not represented on 22 April 2024. 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 proceedings dated 25 October 2023. It was alleged that Mr Boreland was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that prior to his employment and/or whilst employed as a teacher at the Bishop Barrington School (’the School’) between January 2021 and August 2021: 1) He engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Individual A, a person who was aged [REDACTED] and attended the same church at which he held the role of Youth Leader; 2) His behaviour as may be found proven at allegation 1 was sexually motivated; 3) He failed to disclose to the School: a) His relationship with Individual A; b) That he had been the subject of a Disclosure and Barring Service (‘DBS’) referral; 4) His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 3 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. During the hearing Mr Boreland made a partial admission in respect of allegation 1 in that he admitted he engaged in a relationship with Individual A but denied his relationship with Individual A was inappropriate, admitted allegation 2, made a partial admission in respect of allegations 3 (a) and (b) in that he admitted he did not make the disclosures but did not accept he “failed” to do so, and denied allegation 4. Mr Boreland denied that his conduct as admitted in respect of allegations 1, 2, 3 (a) and (b) amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application made on 23 January 2024 Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the teacher for the admission of additional documents. The teacher’s documents were: 5 • Witness statement of Mr Boreland – the teacher • Witness statement of Witness D – [REDACTED] 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 presenting officer in respect of the application. The presenting officer did not have an objection to the application. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant and should be admitted in the interests of a fair hearing. Accordingly, the documents were admitted and added to the bundle. Applications made on 22 April 2024 Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Boreland was not present at the reconvened hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Boreland. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Boreland in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.55 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel was further satisfied that Mr Boreland was aware of the date upon which the hearing was reconvening. The panel concluded that Mr Boreland’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Boreland had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at the reconvened hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Boreland was unfit to attend the reconvened hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the reconvened hearing to proceed. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the reconvened hearing was as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Boreland was neither present nor represented. 6 Application to admit additional documents The panel considered the admission of an additional document on behalf of Mr Boreland. The teacher’s document was a character reference from Witness D. The document subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the document should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The presenting officer did not object to the admission of the document. The panel considered the additional document was relevant and should be admitted in the interests of a fair hearing. Accordingly, the document was added to the bundle. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 5 to 16 • Section 2: TRA witness statements – pages 18 to 82 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 84 to 182 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 184 to 260 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Witness statement of Mr Boreland • Witness statement of Witness D 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: Witness A – [REDACTED] • Witness B – [REDACTED] • Witness C – [REDACTED] 7 The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Boreland. Mr Boreland also called the following witnesses: • Witness D 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 Boreland was a teacher at the School from January 2021 until he was dismissed on 26 August 2021. On Friday 2 July 2021, Witness C, [REDACTED] disclosed a safeguarding concern to Witness B, [REDACTED]. The disclosure referred to information which had allegedly been passed to the [REDACTED] by a former employee, who reported that there had been a safeguarding concern regarding Mr Boreland, at a time when he had been offered employment at [REDACTED]; the offer of this employment was subsequently withdrawn due to this safeguarding concern. [REDACTED] informed the [REDACTED] that the concern had been referred to the Sunderland LADO. On 2 July 2021, the [REDACTED] was advised by Durham LADO and Durham’s Lead Education Safeguarding and Vulnerable Groups to contact the Sunderland LADO, which [REDACTED] did immediately on the same day. A referral was made to the Durham LADO on 6 July 2021 and an evaluation meeting was held by the Durham LADO on 12 July 2021. The Sunderland LADO submitted a statement to the School’s DSL on 6 July 2021, confirming that a substantiated allegation was made against Mr Boreland citing a relationship he was in with a [REDACTED] (‘Individual A’). The Sunderland LADO reported that Mr Boreland was referred to them on 28 September 2020 following a child concern notification being submitted by Northumbria Police after Individual A was reported missing by [REDACTED] parents. Individual A was located at the home of Mr Boreland and advised [REDACTED] had informed [REDACTED] parents of [REDACTED] intention to visit him after school; however, [REDACTED] mother had forgotten this. The police reported that Individual A was in a relationship with Mr Boreland whom [REDACTED] had met as he was the Youth Leader for the Church [REDACTED] attended with [REDACTED] family and had been a member of the youth congregation since [REDACTED] was [REDACTED] years of age. Contact was made by Sunderland Contact and Referral Team with Individual A’s parents who confirmed they were aware of this relationship. The police were consulted, who 8 advised that no offence had been committed as religious youth leaders fell outside of the remit of a position of trust, and as In