Mr Andrew Richard Dixon

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 Richard Dixon

Teacher reference number: 21462

Teacher's date of birth: 14 December 1997

Location teacher worked: Suffolk, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 October 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 Richard Dixon, formerly employed in Ipswich.

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 Richard Dixon: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Andrew Richard Dixon Teacher ref number: 2041307 Teacher date of birth: 14 December 1997 TRA reference: 21462 Date of determination: 25 October 2024 Former employer: St Joseph’s College, Ipswich Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 October 2024 via virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Andrew Richard Dixon. The panel members were Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Neil Hillman (teacher panellist) and Mr Francis Murphy (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Dixon was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 23 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Dixon was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 30 March 2023, he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 16 December 2022. The allegation was admitted by the teacher. The teacher admitted that his conduct amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Hearing complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession dated May 2020 (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1 that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones: i) The panel had sight of the Notice of Hearing which was sent to the teacher on 23 July 2024. The panel had sight of the teacher’s signed response to the Notice of Hearing dated 8 August 2024. Within this response, the teacher 5 confirmed that he did not intend to be present at the hearing, nor did he intend to be represented at the hearing. The panel also had sight of a covering letter to the TRA which was signed by the teacher, dated 8 August 2024, in which the teacher confirmed that he would not be attending the hearing [REDACTED]. The panel was satisfied that the teacher waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place; ii) The panel did not consider that an adjournment would result in the teacher attending voluntarily; iii) The panel had the benefit of written representations made by the teacher, which included his evidence in mitigation, and was able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and noted that should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel would be able to take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned; iv) There was no risk of the panel reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the teacher. The teacher’s reason for his non-attendance was set out in his letter to the TRA dated 8 August 2024; v) The panel recognised that the allegation against the teacher was serious, and that there was a real risk that if found proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching; vi) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged is said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at St Joseph’s College (“the College”). The panel noted that the College would have an interest in the hearing taking place in order to move forwards; and vii) The panel noted that there were no witnesses to be called, and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses was not a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s clear and unequivocal waiver of his right to appear, and by taking such measures referred to above to address any unfairness caused insofar as possible; that on balance, this was a serious allegation and the public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing as listed. 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 6 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 17 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 18 to 115 The panel had sight of the anonymised pupil list, which had been provided as a separate document alongside the hearing bundle. The panel also had sight of a separate “proceeding in absence” bundle, which was relied upon by the presenting officer as part of his preliminary application to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing, including the additional documents referred to above. Witnesses The panel did not hear oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 5 January 2022, Mr Dixon commenced employment in a new role at the College as a Temporary Residential Boarding Assistant, having first joined the College from University in 2019. On 31 August 2022, Mr Dixon’s role at the College changed to Teacher of PE and Games, Boarding House Tutor and Head of House. On 16 December 2022, Mr Dixon was arrested at the College. On 17 December 2022, Mr Dixon was released from police custody on bail, pending a court appearance. On 5 January 2023, Mr Dixon attended an investigatory meeting at the College. On 16 January 2023, Mr Dixon attended a disciplinary hearing at the College. On 17 January 2023, Mr Dixon was dismissed from the College. 7 On 26 January 2023, Mr Dixon was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: You have been convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 1. On 30 March 2023, you were convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 16 December 2022. Mr Dixon admitted that he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, in the response to the Notice of Hearing that he signed and returned on 8 August 2024. The panel noted the following facts, as set out in the referral to the TRA and which were not disputed by Mr Dixon:- On 16 December 2022, after the term had finished, Mr Dixon went out for drinks after work with colleagues. He returned to campus and instead of returning to his staff accommodation at a different location on campus, he arrived at the common room of the [REDACTED] where a group of 24 Spanish students had been staying prior to their return to Spain. At approximately 10:40pm, the [REDACTED] received reports from students that Mr Dixon was fighting with a male member of staff from the holiday company who was looking after the group of students, post the end of the school term. The police were called, and Mr Dixon was arrested for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. Mr Dixon entered a guilty plea, and on 30 March 2023, he was convicted of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 16 December 2022, contrary to section 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court. Mr Dixon was ordered to pay a fine and compensation. The panel has seen the certificate of conviction and accepted it as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel has also seen an extract of the police national computer record confirming the conviction. The panel found this allegation proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proven, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offe