Mr Austin Murphy

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 Austin Murphy

Teacher reference number: 9938262

Teacher's date of birth: 21 April 1976

Location teacher worked: Stourbridge, west midlands England

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 to 12 January 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 Austin Murphy, formerly employed in Stourbridge, west midlands 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 Austin Murphy: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Austin Murphy Teacher ref number: 9938262 Teacher date of birth: 21 April 1976 TRA reference: 18440 Date of determination: 12 January 2023 Former employer: First for Education Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 9 to 12 January 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Austin Murphy. The panel members were Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Terry Hyde (former teacher panellist) and Ms Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Murphy was present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 October 2022 and the application to amend the allegations, as detailed below, which was submitted on the first day of the hearing but dated 6 January 2023. The application to amend the allegations was granted and the amended allegations are as set out below. It was alleged that Mr Murphy was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst employed and/or engaged as a teacher between 2017 and 2019 he: 1. Engaged in inappropriate behaviour with Child A in that he: a) Sent inappropriate messages to Child A to the effect of: i. ‘I may have fucked you up’; and ii. ‘I got you the pen knife to cut yourself’ b) Sent an occasion card to Child A, the contents of which was inappropriate, including in that he: i. Referred to himself as Child A’s future husband and the mother of his children c) He stroked Child A’s leg in a way which made her feel uncomfortable. Mr Murphy admitted the facts of allegations 1(a) and (b), however in his initial Notice of Response (submitted to the panel on 6 January 2023) he denied that those admitted facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Murphy denied allegation 1(c). Preliminary applications There were the following preliminary applications: Request for Mr Murphy to be accompanied by a witness supporter The panel considered a request by Mr Murphy, although not made by way of a formal preliminary application from Mr Murphy, on the day of the hearing to be accompanied by a witness supporter, namely, Individual G throughout the hearing. The panel noted that Mr Murphy was unrepresented and therefore was unlikely to be familiar with the hearing processes. 5 The panel considered the need to be balanced to both parties and the fact that Mr Murphy was unrepresented. The presenting officer did not object to Mr Murphy having a witness support, although the panel noted that he had also provided a character reference as part of the bundle. The panel therefore granted Mr Murphy’s request to have Individual G present in support throughout the hearing but clarified that the purpose of this support was not for the purposes of advocacy. Application for the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from the presenting officer made on the first day of the hearing but dated 6 January 2023 that the hearing should be heard in private. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. There were no objections to the application from Mr Murphy. The panel considered that there was a need to protect the interests of Child A [REDACTED] as far as possible and there was not a sufficient contrary public interest in hearing the matter in public. The panel therefore granted the application. Application to amend the allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegations as set out above. This application was provided by the presenting officer on the first day of the hearing but was dated 6 January 2023. The panel noted that Mr Murphy had been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations on 6 January 2023 and queried why the application had come to the attention of the panel on the morning of the hearing. The presenting officer confirmed that she had only recently been instructed to this matter, which had previously been dealt with by a colleague. Mr Murphy confirmed that he did not object to the amended allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendments would not change the nature and scope of the allegations in that the allegations would, as amended, still be within the same parameters. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. 6 Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Special measures application At the start of the hearing, the panel considered an application from the presenting officer which was made on day one of the hearing but dated 6 January 2023. The presenting officer made an application requesting special measures on behalf of a witness, Witness D. The application seeks that Witness D be treated as a vulnerable witness and that: • S he be accompanied by a witness supporter, namely [REDACTED], whilst giving evidence; • She would not have sight of Mr Murphy which was to be achieved by Mr Murphy turning off his camera whilst Witness D joined the hearing, and her then covering Mr Murphy on her screen whilst Mr Murphy’s camera remained off. The camera was then to be switched back on when Witness D was satisfied that she couldn’t see Mr Murphy; • Mr Murphy be denied the opportunity to ask Witness D questions directly and for Mr Murphy’s questions to be asked by another appropriate person. The application stated that, as the allegations involved Mr Murphy and Child A, the proposed special measures were appropriate and would still allow the opportunity to test the evidence with no or limited prejudice to Mr Murphy. The presenting officer relied upon paragraph 4.71 and 4.72 of the Procedures under which the panel may adopt such measures as it considers appropriate in order to safeguard the interests of a child or vulnerable witness which may include the use of a video link, the use of an intermediary, the hearing of evidence by the panel in private and the attendance of a witness supporter. The presenting officer also relied upon paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures under which the panel may exclude the public from a hearing. The presenting officer submitted that the special measures are likely to make the process easier for Witness D, particularly as she may feel intimidated by Mr Murphy due to the nature of the allegations, and ensure that she is able to give the best evidence by making her feel comfortable and enabling her to communicate more effectively. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a request although not made by way of a formal preliminary application from Mr Murphy on the day of the hearing to admit an additional document, namely the Notice of Hearing dated 6 January 2023. 7 The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the 2018 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel heard representations in respect of the request to include an additional document from the teacher confirming that the Notice of Hearing document had been submitted in June 2022 but had been lost and therefore had had to be resubmitted. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. 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. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Anon