Mr Andrew Ian Tonner

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 Ian Tonner

Teacher reference number: 9745410

Teacher's date of birth: 25 March 1976

Location teacher worked: Spennymoor, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 December 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 Ian Tonner formerly employed in Spennymoor, North East 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 Ian Tonner: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision Teacher: Mr Andrew Ian Tonner Teacher ref number: 9745410 Teacher date of birth: 25 March 1976 TRA reference: 21194 Date of determination: 13 December 2024 Former employer: The Meadows School, Spennymoor, County Durham (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 13 December 2024 to consider the case of Mr Tonner. The panel members were Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist - Chair), Mrs Jane Brothwood (lay panellist) and Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Alice Williams of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Tonner that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Tonner 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 or Mr Tonner. The meeting took place in private and virtually. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 27 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Andrew Ian Tonner was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 21 September 2022, he was convicted at Newcastle Magistrates Court of three counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 11/11/21-14/11/21 contrary to section 1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Tonner had previously acknowledged in correspondence addressed to the panel that he was guilty of the above offence within the Notice of Referral Form dated 3 July 2024. He also admitted the allegation within the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by him on 14 August 2024 and that this amounted to a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 3 to 14 Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 16 to 20 Section 3: TRA Documents – pages 22 to 107 Section 4: Teacher Documents – pages 109 to 112 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Tonner on 14 August 2024. Decision and reasons The panel considered at the outset whether the allegation should be considered at a public hearing which the parties would be entitled to attend, or a private meeting without 5 the parties present. The panel considered the interests of justice and given that the facts of the allegation have been admitted that Mr Tonner had requested a meeting and the panel had the benefit of Mr Tonner’s representations, the panel was of the view that justice would be adequately served by considering this matter at a meeting. The panel carefully considered the public interest. The panel noted that if the case proceeded in a meeting, there would not be a public reading out of the panel’s decision. The panel also had in mind that if a hearing was convened, there would be a cost to the public purse, which may not be justified if the matter could be determined in a meeting. The panel also had regard to the delay that would be caused by convening a hearing and considered it to be in the public interest to reach a final determination in this matter without further delay. The panel therefore decided to proceed with a meeting, but noted that it could, at any stage of the meeting, reconsider this issue. The panel’s decision and reasons are as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. Mr Andrew Ian Tonner was employed by the School from 1 September 2012. At the time of his dismissal on 18 October 2022, he was deputy headteacher but had been employed in various posts prior to this. Mr Tonner was arrested on 16 November 2021 in relation to reports of indecent images. On 21 September 2022, Mr Tonner was convicted at Newcastle Magistrates Court of three counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 11/11/21-14/11/21 contrary to section 1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation proved, for these reasons: 1. On 21 September 2022 you were convicted at Newcastle Magistrates Court of three counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo- photograph of children on 11/11/21-14/11/21 contrary to section 1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978 The panel was provided with a copy of the Police National Computer (PNC) record which confirms Mr Tonner’s conviction on 21 September 2022 at Newcastle Magistrates Court of three counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 11/11/21-14/11/21 (Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a)). The panel was also provided with the Certificate of Conviction confirming Mr Tonner’s conviction for making indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child. 6 The panel accepted the Certificate of Conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. Mr Tonner admitted within the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by him on 14 August 2024 that he was convicted of three counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo- photograph of children on 11/11/21-14/11/21 contrary to section 1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Tonner further admitted that there were 10 category A images and 18 category A videos, 4 category B images, 1 category B video, and 1 category C image on his personal device. The panel therefore found this allegation proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of that proved allegation amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Tonner in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Tonner 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 … and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Tonner’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting because Mr Tonner’s conviction related to making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children with the age of the children being between 2 and 14 years old, as set out in the sentencing remarks. The panel therefore noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils. 7 The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered Mr Tonner’s behaviour in committing the offences would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Tonner was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Tonner’s behaviour led to a suspended prison sentence, the Judge said in his sentencing remarks that Mr Tonner would have been sent to prison due to the severity of his offence but by virtue of his guilty plea this was reduced to a suspended sentence with sexual notification and rehabilitation activity requirements. Mr Tonner was also subject to a sexual harm prevention order and ordered to do 150 hours unpaid work. This was a case concerning an offence involving making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one-off incidents is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. The panel took into account Mr Tonner’s admission and acknowledgement of the seriousness of the allegation against him. The panel also noted that in the sentencing remarks, the Judge referred to Mr Tonner’s previous good record as a teacher, the references from various former colleagues who spoke very highly of him, including a former partner who referred to his [REDACTED]. The sentencing remarks also contained details about steps taken by Mr Tonner to address his offending including documents from Safer Lives, the Richmond Fellowship and his counsellor. However, the panel did not have an opportunity to consider or question the refe