Mr Andrew Holt

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 Holt

Teacher reference number: 9844741

Teacher's date of birth: 9 March 1977

Location teacher worked: Devon, south west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 23 to 24 June 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 Holt formerly employed in Devon, south 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 Holt: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2022 2 3 4 4 7 7 8 Contents Introduction Allegations Preliminary applications Summary of evidence Documents Witnesses Decision and reas ons 8 8 15 Findings of fact Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Andrew Holt Teacher ref number: 9844741 Teacher date of birth: 9 March 1977 TRA reference: 19371 Date of determination: 24 June 2022 Former employer: Honiton Community College, Devon Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 23 to 24 June 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Andrew Holt. The panel members were Mr David Raff (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Caroline Downes (lay panellist) and Mr Aidan Jenkins (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Heather Andersen of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Holt was not present and was not represented. 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 5 April 2022. It was alleged that Mr Holt was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as senior vice principal at Honiton Community College between 9 January 2000 and 7 May 2020: 1. He supplied and/or funded a class A controlled substance to Individual A in circumstances where: a) he knew or ought to have known that she was vulnerable; b) he knew or ought to have known that Individual A had a dependency on that substance and/or was likely to ‘relapse’ if she used that substance; c) he was engaged in a relationship with Individual A whereby he exchanged benefits (included but not limited to money and/or controlled substances) wholly or partly in return for sexual activity with her; d) he encouraged and/or facilitated, including through the purchase of condoms and lingerie, Individual A to engage in sex work. 2. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 was sexually motivated. Mr Holt did not provide a substantive response to the allegations, nor did he make any admissions. He did provide a written statement (as referred to below), which the panel took into account. Preliminary applications Application to admit an additional document Although Mr Holt did not attend the hearing, he provided an additional document for the panel to consider at the hearing. Mr Holt’s document was a written statement containing information relating to: his reasons for not attending the hearing; his lack of communication; the hearing being held in private; the impact on him; and information relating to the allegations against him. The document had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession May 2020 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel understood that Mr Holt had sent the statement to the TRA/presenting officer the day before the hearing. Therefore, the panel was required to 5 decide whether the document should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures. The panel was not provided with a copy of the document but heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the document and its content. The panel noted that Mr Holt had been given sufficient time to provide documents in connection with this matter, and had previously indicated to the presenting officer that such documents would be forthcoming. However, based upon the presenting officer’s representations, the panel considered that the additional document was relevant and that it would be in the interests of justice for it to be admitted, particularly as it contained evidence relating to Mr Holt’s non-attendance at the hearing. Accordingly, the document was added to the bundle and the panel was provided with a copy to consider. Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Holt was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Holt. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to within 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 Holt in accordance with the Procedures. The panel was satisfied that Mr Holt was aware of the hearing given the content of the statement he provided. The panel concluded that Mr Holt’s absence was voluntary. The panel noted that Mr Holt had stated “I would be open to the idea of an adjournment, I am due back in the UK in October”. The panel also considered correspondence between Mr Holt and Browne Jacobson, the presenting officer firm, and the TRA. On 12 August 2020 Mr Holt requested an extension to 7 September 2020 to provide Browne Jacobson with information relating to this matter, which was agreed. On 7 September 2020, Mr Holt contacted Browne Jacobson to inform them that his response would be with them on 9 September 2020. On 9 September 2020 Mr Holt contacted Browne Jacobson and said that he had been unwell and unable to meet with his trade union representative and so his response would be with them on 11 September 2020. On 9 September Browne Jacobson informed Mr Holt that he would be provided with further information in due course and would therefore be given a further deadline to submit his response. 6 On 25 September 2020 Mr Holt emailed Browne Jacobson stating that his response was attached to his email, however there was no attachment to his email. Browne Jacobson requested the attachment on two occasions, on 25 and 28 September 2020, but it was not provided. On 18 May 2021, Mr Holt requested an extension to 24 May 2021 to provide his response, which was agreed. On 25 May 2021 Mr Holt wrote to Browne Jacobson and stated: “My legal team are amending my statement and this will be with you within 48 hours.” However, the statement was not provided. The panel was provided with further evidence that the TRA/Browne Jacobson had attempted to contact Mr Holt on several occasions. The panel noted that Mr Holt had not substantively responded, save to confirm (on 6 April 2022) that documents should be sent to him by email and not by post. Therefore, whilst the panel acknowledged Mr Holt’s reference to an adjournment, potentially to October 2022, the panel was not persuaded that an adjournment would procure Mr Holt’s attendance at a hearing. In particular, the panel considered that Mr Holt had, on several occasions, requested extensions but still failed to provide information or properly engage in the proceedings. The panel considered that Mr Holt had had ample time to request an adjournment at an earlier stage, yet had not done so. In his statement, Mr Holt referred to having anxiety and to the process having an adverse impact on his mental health. However, there was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Holt was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel was also mindful of the effect on the TRA’s witness, Individual A, of any delay and appreciated that it may not be an easy process for Individual A to give evidence in respect of this matter. The panel considered the comments in the Adeogba case regarding the burden on registered professionals to engage with their regulator such that they should not be able to effectively frustrate proceedings by not attending. The panel concluded that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Holt was neither present nor represented. Application for the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered a brief application from Mr Holt (contained in his written statement) that the hearing should be heard in private in order to protect his family, including his children. 7 The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. The presenting officer submitted that the hearing should take place in public. The panel decided not to grant Mr Holt’s application. The panel was aware that, under the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 it had the ability to exclude the public from all or part of a hearing where: (a) it appears to the panel to be in the interests of justice to do so; or (b) where the teacher requests that the hearing (or part of it) should be heard in private and the panel does not consider it to be contrary to the public interest to do so. However, the panel was mindful that there is a presumption that the hearing would take place in public. The panel took account of relevant case law in respect of Mr Holt’s application, including Legal Aid Board Ex p Kaim Todner and Paul William Miller v General Medical Council and the general principle that parties and witnesses to proceedings have to accept the risk of embarrassment and consequential loss and damage as a result of giving evidence at a public hearing. The panel considered Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Paragraph 5.87 of the Procedures and understood that even where a hearing is heard in private, the panel is required to announce