Mr Anthony Bennett

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 Anthony Bennett

Teacher reference number: 9248570

Teacher's date of birth: 20 February 1971

Location teacher worked: East Tilbury, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 to 12 July 2023 and 3 to 5 October 2023

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 Anthony Bennett, formerly employed in East Tilbury, East of 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 Anthony Bennett: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Anthony Bennett Teacher ref number: 9248570 Teacher date of birth: 20 February 1971 TRA reference: 19973 Date of determination: 5 October 2023 Employer: East Tilbury Primary School, Essex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 to 12 July 2023 and 3 to 5 October 2023 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Anthony Bennett. The panel members were Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist) and Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Stephen Ferson, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Bennett was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of The Reflective Practice. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 24 April 2023. It was alleged that Mr Bennett was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while employed as a teacher at Swan Valley Secondary School, he: 1. Between on or around July 2001 and December 2002, sent one or more inappropriate messages and/or emails to Pupil A and/or Pupil B; 2. Between on or around 2001 and 2003, engaged in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with Pupil B, who was aged 16 at the time, shortly after she had left the School; 3. Between 2001 and 2003, his behaviour towards Pupil A and/or Pupil B demonstrated elements of building an inappropriate relationship; 4. Between on or around 2001 and 2003, failed to maintain the standards of behaviour expected between himself and/or Pupil A and/or Pupil B. 5. His conduct as set out above at allegations 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 was sexually motivated. Preliminary applications Private hearing Mr Faux made an application for this hearing to be held in private on the basis of the impact that the proceedings might have on Mr Bennett and his family. In support of that position, the panel had sight of statements written by Mr Bennett, his current wife and former wife. The statements in particular set out that the emotional welfare of their children should be appropriately safeguarded from the potential impact that might be caused by publicity of these proceedings, including exposure to stigmatisation and bullying owing to the sensitive nature of the allegations. Mr Ferson opposed the application and submitted there was limited information in the application to suggest the panel should move away from the starting point of this being a public hearing. However, Mr Ferson did not object to hearing any evidence relating to Mr Bennett’s health in private. 5 The panel recognised that any parent would wish to take steps to protect their family members from the embarrassment and difficulties that flow from proceedings of this nature. In considering the relevant legal advice, the panel also recognised the fundamental importance of holding hearings in public and the high threshold that needed to be passed when considering the impact of these proceedings on third parties. The panel considered the material before it and took the view that it only raised a general concern about the potential impact on family members. There was no other specific evidence, such as medical evidence for the panel to consider. The panel considered the guidance was clear and that no exceptional grounds had been put forward in this application that would allow the panel to derogate from the starting point that the hearing should be held in public. Accordingly, the application was refused. Additional evidence During the course of the hearing, the parties made applications to introduce further documents into the evidence. On each of these occasions, the respondent to the application did not object to the documents being admitted. The panel considered these documents as relevant and that no fairness would be caused by their admission. Those documents were:  A statement from Mr Bennett expanding on issues in relation to the application for privacy;  A further statement and exhibit from Pupil A in relation to purported emails sent from Mr Bennett in 2002;  A further evidential bundle by the TRA consisting of: a digital forensic expert report, further statements and exhibits from: Pupil A, Pupil B and Pupil C, including pictures of a diary and photographs that were purportedly made contemporaneously to the allegations. Special Measures Mr Ferson made an application for Pupil A, Pupil B and Individual E to be considered as vulnerable witnesses and as a result to be afforded special measures in giving their evidence. In regards to Pupil A and Pupil B, Mr Ferson relied on paragraph 5.102 of the Disciplinary Procedures, which sets out that complainants of sexual misconduct should be considered as vulnerable witnesses. Mr Ferson’s application was that the pupils should be screened from seeing Mr Bennett. 6 In regards to Individual E, Mr Ferson further submitted that owing to certain medical conditions, Individual E would not be able to attend in person and appearing by video link would be an appropriate special measure to address that vulnerability. Mr Faux did not oppose the applications. The panel was satisfied that sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 5.102 was engaged in regards to Pupil A and Pupil B and that sub-paragraph (iii) was engaged in respect of Individual E. Furthermore the panel considered the proposed special measures for each of those witnesses was a suitable adaptation to ensuring that the panel would receive the best evidence from these witnesses. Accordingly, the panel granted these applications. Application to adjourn During the course of Pupil A giving her evidence, it became apparent that she still had access to emails which were purported to have been sent from Mr Bennett in 2002. The panel was also made aware that in January 2023, Mr Bennett’s legal representatives had asked the TRA to undertake further enquiries regarding those emails, including disclosing the emails in a format which would render them suitable for analysis by an expert to establish their veracity. The TRA sought to rely on these emails as direct evidence of the inappropriate relationship with Pupil A. Mr Bennett’s position was he was simply not the author of these emails and that they must have fabricated. Mr Faux highlighted that, although the emails did not directly deal with the allegations themselves, they would likely impact the credibility of Pupil A if it could be forensically determined that they had been fabricated. Mr Ferson was neutral on the application. The panel considered that the issues surrounding the email were too important to continue the hearing without resolving. Potentially this was one of the few possible contemporaneous documents available to the panel and their veracity was in dispute. The panel took into account that the TRA witnesses had in essence now completed their evidence and therefore the impact of an adjournment on them would be minimal. Owing to the disputed nature of this evidence, an adjournment to forensically examine the emails would ensure that Mr Bennett’s assertion could be fully considered. The panel considered this would be in the interests of justice, notwithstanding any further delay that it would cause. Accordingly, the panel granted the application. 7 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Index, chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 1 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 10 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 11 to 38 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 39 to 132 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 133 to 158 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the documents as set out in the preliminary applications section above. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA:  Pupil A, [redacted];  Pupil B, [redacted];  Individual C;  Individual D;  Individual E, [redacted]; The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the teacher:  Anthony Bennett, the teacher;  Individual F, character witness. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. Whilst the panel has considered all of the evidence before it, not every piece of evidence will be referenced in this decision. 8 Mr Bennett took up post as a teacher and subject lead for PE at Swan Valley Secondary School (the “School”) in September 2000. Pupil A and Pupil B were pupils at the School and were in [redacted] when Mr Bennett started. Both were in the same [redacted] and Mr Bennett became [redacted] when he started at the School. Both Pupil A and Pupil B completed their studies at the School and [redacted]. Pupil A and B