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:

9443024

Teacher's date of birth:

10 July 1958

Location teacher worked:

Devon, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel:

3 to 4 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 Andrew Cushing, formerly employed in Devon, South West England.

The proceedings were held at 5 Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 3 to 4 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 Andrew Cushing: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Cushing 4 Application to admit additional documentation 6 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 E. Decision and reasons 7 Evidence considered by the panel 8 Findings of fact 8 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 17 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Andrew Cushing Teacher ref number: 9443024 Teacher date of birth: 10 July 1958 TRA reference: 17566 Date of determination: 3 July 2019 Former employer: Orchard Manor School, Dawlish, Devon (formerly Ratcliffe School) A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 3 July 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Andrew Cushing. The panel members were Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Brian Hawkins (teacher panellist) and Ms Karen McArthur (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Cushing was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 3 May 2019 ("the Notice"). It was alleged that Mr Cushing was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that he: 1. Failed to respond adequately or at all to an incident on or around 20 April 2018 in which Pupil F struck and/or kicked Pupil J in a classroom in which he was supervising, including that he: (a) did not use any intervention and/or distraction and/or de-escalation strategies; (b) did not call for support; (c) did not check on Pupil J's welfare; (d) did not report the incident on the school's 'Behaviour Watch' system and/or inform the school and/or inform Pupil J's parents of the incident; (e) when asked about the incident by a colleague responded to the effect that he didn't know that anything had happened when in fact he had been present to witness it; (f) when asked to provide details of the incident by the school responded in an e-mail to the effect that no one had any knowledge of the incident when in fact he had been present to witness it. 2. His conduct at Allegation 1(e) and/or 1(f) as may be found proven was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Whilst Mr Cushing had provided a response to the allegations at an earlier stage of the proceedings, he had not responded to the Notice of Proceedings. In those circumstances, all of the allegations were treated as being denied. C. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Cushing The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Cushing. 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 5 case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Mr Cushing had not responded to the Notice or to other correspondence sent to him following the Notice. Mr Cushing had provided a response at the TRA investigation stage by way of a letter dated 15 November 2018, which was included within the hearing papers. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Cushing was, at the very least, aware of these proceedings in general terms. Having regard to this earlier response and the totality of the corresp ondence sent to Mr Cushing by both recorded delivery and email , the panel was also satisfied that the TRA had made all reasonable efforts to bring the hearing to Mr Cushing's attention. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Cushing's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel has given careful consideration to th e fact that Mr Cushing is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. On balance, the panel has decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Cushing for the following reasons: • Mr Cushing has not sought an adjournment and there is no medical evidence before the panel which indicated that Mr Cushing was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-health. • The panel was satisfied that Mr Cushing's absence was voluntary and he had waived his right to attend. • The risk of reaching the wrong conclusion and the disadvantage to Mr Cushing in not being present are mitigated by the fact that he has at least provided some response to the allegations in this case. • Given Mr Cushing's non-engagement, there was no indication that he might attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. 6 • There is a burden on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. • There is a witness present to give evidence to the panel who would be significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Cushing is neither present nor represented. Application to admit additional documentation The panel considered an application on behalf of the TRA to admit additional documentation comprising of: 1. Proofs of delivery in relation to correspondence sent to Mr Cushing; and 2. A signed witness statement of Individual A together with an Ofsted Report. The panel had careful regard to the submissions made and accepted the legal advice provided. In relation to item 1, the panel decided these documents ought to be admitted. They were relevant to its decision whether to proceed in the absence of Mr Cushing. There was also no prejudice to Mr Cushing, given the documents were not evidential in nature. In relation to item 2, whilst these documents were included within the hearing bundle they had not been served strictly in accordance with the rules for the reasons set out by the presenting officer. However, they were provided to Mr Cushing approximately 3 weeks prior to the hearing . Mr Cushing had previously been provided with an unsigned cop y of Individual A’s statement. The panel concluded that these documents were relevant to the issues to be determined and in all the circumstances they ought to be admitted on the basis that it was fair to do so. There was no prejudice to Mr Cushing when he had been provided with the documents some time before the hearing and had raised no objection. D. 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 2 to 10 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 12 to 13 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 15 to 144 7 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 146 In addition, as noted above the panel agreed to accept proofs of delivery which were added to the case papers, marked pages 10A to 10E. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Individual A called by the presenting officer. Mr Cushing did not attend to give oral evidence. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered this case and reached a decision. The panel confirmed that it has read all the documents included in the hearing bundle in advance of the hearing and subsequently. Introduction At the relevant time for the purposes of these proceedings, Mr Cushing was employed as a teacher at the Orchard Manor school in Dawlish (previously called Ratcliffe School) ("the School"). Mr Cushing commenced work at the School in or around September 2017. His role was described within the papers as a: "Class teacher for a small group of pupils with varied SEND. Providing core subject teaching and pastoral support" On 22 April 2018, the headteacher of the School received an email from a parent of a pupil at the School, Pupil J. This reported that Pupil J had been attacked during the course of a lesson supervised by Mr Cushing on 20 April 2018. This email was forwarded to Individual A, [REDACTED], who made enquiries with Mr Cushing and who interrogated the School's 'Behaviour Watch' system. The School's CCTV was subsequently reviewed by the headteacher. This led to an investigation being commenced by the School, at the conclusion of which a disciplinary process was commenced. Mr Cushing was subsequently referred to the TRA. 8 Evidence considered by the panel The panel carefully considered all