Mr Andrew Stephen Morris

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 Stephen Morris

Teacher reference number: 3761127

Teacher's date of birth: 03 July 1979

Location teacher worked: East Grinstead, West Sussex

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 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 Stephen Morris formerly employed in East Grinstead, West Sussex.

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 Stephen Morris: Professional conduct panel meeting 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 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Andrew Stephen Morris Teacher ref number: 3761127 Teacher date of birth: 03 July 1979 TRA reference: 20403 Date of determination: 04 October 2024 Former employer: Brambletye School, West Sussex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 4 October 2024, to consider the case of Mr Andrew Stephen Morris (“Mr Morris”). The panel members were Ms Jackie Hutchings (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist) and Mrs Dawn Hawkins (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn 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 Morris that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Morris 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 Alexander Barnfield or Mr Morris. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 18 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Morris was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 12 August 2021 at West Sussex Magistrates Court he was convicted of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Morris admitted the facts of this allegation and that he has been convicted of 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: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 6 to 9 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 10 to 14 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 15 to 58 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Morris on 3 April 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. 5 In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Morris for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Morris was employed as the deputy head teacher of Brambletye School (the “School”) between 1 September 2017 and 1 April 2021. The police received information that on 17 July 2019, that a user of a website had uploaded a Category C indecent image of a child. The Police were able to identify Mr Morris as the user and he was arrested on 21 April 2020 on suspicion of possession of indecent images of children. Mr Morris’ computer and phone were seized by the police. He was released on bail and suspended by the School. Subsequently, Mr Morris ceased employment at the School. Mr Morris appeared at West Sussex Magistrates Court on 12 August 2021, where he pleaded guilty to one offence under s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. On 20 October 2021, Mr Morris was sentenced at the Magistrates Court to an 18 month community order. He was required to be registered on the sex offenders’ register for 5 years from 12 August 2021. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 12 August 2021 at West Sussex Magistrates Court you were convicted of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel was provided with a Certificate of Conviction confirming that Mr Morris was convicted of the alleged offence on 12 August 2021, after pleading guilty to the offence. On 20 October 2021, Mr Morris was sentenced to an 18 month Community Order with requirements to complete 120 hours of unpaid work and up to 40 days of a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement. He was also required to sign the Sex Offender’s Register for 5 years from 12 August 2021. The panel accepted the Certificate of Conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction. The Police National Computer (“PNC”) print contained in the bundle also confirmed Mr Morris’ conviction of the above offence. 6 In a statement of agreed facts Mr Morris admitted that on 17 July 2019 at East Grinstead he made indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children contrary to s.1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel found allegation 1 proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of this proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Morris, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Morris 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:  treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position  showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others  not undermining fundamental British values, including …, the rule of law… • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach… • 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 Morris’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting because the conviction related to the making of indecent images of children which resulted in Mr Morris being on the Sex Offender’s Register for five years. The panel 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 members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Morris’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Morris was allowed to continue teaching. This was a case concerning an offence involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo 7 photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one-off incidents. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such an offence is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. The panel noted that Mr Morris’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. However, the panel noted that Mr Morris was in a senior position at the School as deputy head. The panel noted that in the Certificate of Conviction it referred to the fact the offence was ‘low level’ and there was ‘no further offending’. The panel considered the fact Mr Morris pleaded guilty and the photograph relevant to the conviction did not involve any pupils in his care. It also noted that during his police interview he made reference to [REDACTED] and that he would [REDACTED]. Furthermore, at the end of his police interview, Mr Morris referred to the ‘excellent care and support’ he has received from his [REDACTED]. The panel had no sight of any supportive [REDACTED] evidence. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction outweighed the mitigation referred to above and was relevant to Mr Morris’s suitability to be a teacher. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Morris and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive