Mr Anthony John Moore

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Anthony John Moore

Teacher reference number: 9645575

Teacher's date of birth: 20 August 1973

Location teacher worked: Northampton, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 July 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 Anthony John Moore, formerly employed in Northampton, East Midlands.

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 Moore: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2022 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 10 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 Anthony Moore Teacher ref number: 9645575 Teacher date of birth: 20 August 1973 TRA reference: 16778 Date of determination: 14 July 2022 Former employer: Kingsthorpe Grove Primary School, Northampton Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 14 July 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Anthony Moore. The panel members were Ms Oluremi Alabi (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Susanne Staab (teacher panellist) and Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael O’Donohoe of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Moore 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 hearing dated 27 April 2022 (as amended following an application from the presenting officer). It was alleged that Mr Moore was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 15 February 2021, he was convicted of Possessing an Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of a Child, contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. 2. On 15 February 2021, he was convicted of three counts of Making Indecent Photograph[s] or Pseudo-Photograph of Children[s], contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978. Preliminary applications The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 (the ‘April 2018 Procedures’) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Moore was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Moore. 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 Moore in accordance with paragraph 4.11 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel considered email exchanges between Mr Moore, the presenting officer and the TRA which, in its view, indicated that Mr Moore had no desire to engage in these proceedings or attend a hearing. Accordingly, the panel concluded that Mr Moore’s 5 absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Moore had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Moore was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place in a timely manner, particularly given the nature of the allegations against Mr Moore. 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 Moore was neither present nor represented. Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegations as follows: • to amend the date in allegation 1 and allegation 2 from “22 April 2021” to “15 February 2021”; • to remove “on 2 October 2016” from allegation 1; and • to remove “between 4 February 2017 and 2 October 2017” from allegation 2. In respect of the first amendment, the panel was informed that 22 April 2021 was the date of Mr Moore’s sentencing and had been included in error; 15 February 2021 was the date of his conviction. This was apparent from the documents in the bundle. In respect of the remaining amendments, the panel was informed that the original wording of the allegations included dates upon which the offences were said to have taken place. However, the certificate of conviction included in the bundle did not confirm the dates of offending. The presenting officer therefore requested that these dates be removed from the allegations so that the allegations were accurate. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the Procedures. The panel was mindful that, as a result of his non-attendance at the hearing, Mr Moore was not aware of the application to amend the allegations and did not have the opportunity to comment on it. However, the panel was satisfied that the amendments did not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations, but merely clarified the allegations. The bundle of documents before the panel indicated that Mr Moore understood the nature of the 6 allegations and the TRA’s case against him. The panel concluded that there was no unfairness or prejudice caused by the amendments to the allegations. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology – page 4 • Section 2: Notice of Proceedings – pages 6 to 16 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 18 to 55 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 57 to 65 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses No witnesses were called to give 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. Mr Moore was employed as a SEMH (Social Emotional and Mental Health) Unit Teacher at Kingsthorpe Grove Primary School (‘the School’) from 1 September 2016. The panel was provided with a copy of Mr Moore’s job description which indicated that his duties included: planning or preparing lessons; delivering lessons and assessing development. The panel was also provided with an email exchange between Alison Dolan, Headteacher at the School and the presenting officer. Within the email exchange Ms Dolan confirmed that Mr Moore undertook the aforementioned duties and that he was a qualified teacher who did not require anybody else to oversee his planning. The panel was not provided with any evidence to suggest that Mr Moore disputed that he was a teacher within the meaning of the Teachers Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (‘Regulations’). The panel was satisfied that Mr Moore was responsible for carrying out 7 teaching work in accordance with the Regulations and, accordingly, that the TRA had jurisdiction to consider this matter. On 6 October 2017, the police contacted the School to ask whether Mr Moore was a staff member of the School. The police subsequently attended the school site and arrested Mr Moore. On 9 October 2017, Mr Moore was suspended from the School. His employment was subsequently terminated on 11 December 2017, following a disciplinary hearing. The matter was referred to the TRA on 10 October 2017. Mr Moore was convicted on 15 February 2021 and was later sentenced on 22 April 2021. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 15 February 2021, you were convicted of Possessing an Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of a Child, contrary to the Criminal Justice Act 1988. 2. On 15 February 2021, you were convicted of three counts of Making Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Northampton Crown Court, which confirmed that: • on 15 February 2021, Mr Moore was convicted of possessing an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child; and • on 15 February 2021 Mr Moore was convicted of three counts of making