Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

0564451

Teacher's date of birth:

2 March 1981

Location teacher worked:

Bristol

Date of professional conduct panel:

29 January 2019

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 Benjamin Bird, formerly employed in Bristol.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 29 January 2019.

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 Benjamin Bird: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2019 2 Contents Contents 2 A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Benjamin Bird Teacher ref number: 0564451 Teacher date of birth: 02/03/1981 TRA reference: 16716 Date of determination: 29 January 2019 Former employer: Bridge Learning Campus, Bristol A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 29 January 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Benjamin Bird. The panel members were Mr Geoffrey Penzer (lay panellist – in the chair), Professor Roger Woods (teacher panellist) and Ms Julia Bell (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nick Leale of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Natalie Millington of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Bird was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 9 November 2018. It was alleged that Mr Benjamin Bird was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as Pastoral Lead at Bridge Learning Campus between 1 September 2016 and 25 May 2017: 1. He engaged in inapproporiate communication with one or more pupils and/or former pupils of Henbury School where he had previously taught until approximately August 2016, including by: a. sending and/or accepting one or more friends requests to and/or from them; b. sending message(s) to them, including words to the effect of: i. "Oi! Why won't you add me? Tart!" to Pupil D; ii. ii. "Currently can't even think about getting out of bed let alone having a wank" to Pupil A; iii. "Morning Glory?" to Pupil A; iv. telling Pupil E "Well maybe run the real thing past me for approval first! [wink emoticon]" with reference to Pupil E's penis; v. sending an e-mail address to Pupil E and stating "if you need to send any photos of it [wink emoticon]" with reference to Pupil E's penis; vi. telling Pupil E "I've seen many examples lol" with reference to images of penises. 2. His conduct as may be found proven at 1a and b above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. Mr Bird was not present and therefore did not indicate any admissions. He had not made any admissions in any written document before the panel. The case therefore proceeded as a fully disputed case. C. Preliminary applications Mr Bird was not in attendance at the hearing and was not represented. 5 The Presenting Officer applied for the hearing to proceed in Mr Bird's absence. The panel were informed, and shown correspondence confirming, that Mr Bird had stated on Friday 25 January 2019 that he could not attend today's hearing due to "work commitments". Mr Bird had further stated that he was "now receiving support from my employer's occupational health programme". This was Mr Bird's first correspondence with the Presenting Officer since he was informed of the hearing date by way of the Notice of Proceedings dated 9 November 2018. Mr Bird had not applied for a postponement of the hearing and had offered no further evidence of his work commitments or health issues in so far as they were relevant to the panel's consideration of the application to proceed in absence. The panel were also shown copies of correspondence from Mr Bird relating to a previous listing of the hearing on 15 August 2018, which he had sent on 14 August 2018, and had stated that he could not attend this previously listed hearing due to work commitments but that he would wish to attend a hearing listed on a later date. After careful consideration the panel decided to proceed with the hearing in Mr Bird's absence, having concluded that Mr Bird had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing and would not attend a later listing. The panel were also informed that the only witness to have signed a statement in these proceedings, Individual A [redacted], was unable to attend the hearing to give evidence due to ill-health. The panel confirmed that the hearing could proceed with Individual A’s evidence being taken as read and not being the subject of any further questioning. Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 36 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 38 to 40 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 42 to 175 There were no documents included in the bundle from Mr Bird. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following additional document into the bundle on the application of the Presenting Officer: Exhibit CB1 – extract from the Henbury School Staff Code of Conduct relating to Safeguarding and Social Networking Sites. This document was paginated as pages 40 a-c. 6 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard no oral evidence. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: We have carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision. We confirm that we have read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. This case relates to a teacher who was Pastoral Lead at Bridge Learning Campus in Bristol. It was alleged that he had engaged in inappropriate communications with his current and former pupils on the Facebook social media platform. He had become or attempted to become friends with his pupils and ex-pupils on Facebook and proceeded to send messages to them of an inappropriate nature. The messages included reference to masturbation and a suggestion to one pupil that he send to him a photograph of his penis. It was further alleged that his conduct was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: We have found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for the following reasons: 1. You engaged in inapproporiate communication with one or more pupils and/or former pupils of Henbury School where you had previously taught until approximately August 2016, including by: a. sending and/or accepting one or more friends requests to and/or from them; b. sending message(s) to them, including words to the effect of: i. "Oi! Why won't you add me? Tart!" to Pupil D; ii. ii. "Currently can't even think about getting out of bed let alone having a wank" to Pupil A; iii. "Morning Glory?" to Pupil A; 7 iv. telling Pupil E "Well maybe run the real thing past me for approval first! [wink emoticon]" with reference to Pupil E's penis; v. sending an e-mail address to Pupil E and stating "if you need to send any photos of it [wink emoticon]" with reference to Pupil E's penis; vi. telling Pupil E "I've seen many examples lol" with reference to images of penises. 2. Your conduct as may be found proven at 1a and b above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. Particular 1 a It is clear from the evidence at pages 49 and 55 of the bundle that on two occasions Mr Bird requested that Pupil D become a friend of his on Facebook. Furthermore, it is clear from pages 42, 43 and 54 of the bundle that Mr Bird exchanged Facebook messages with Pupil A and Pupil E and so must, at some point in time, have either invited them to become or agreed to become friends with him/them on Facebook. The three relevant pupils were either current or past pupils of the school at the time the messages were sent. Particulars 1b (i to vi) We are satisfied that all of the messages sent as alleged in the six sub-particulars of 1b were sent through Facebook to the relevant pupils by Mr Bird. Sub-particular (i) is proved by way of page 55 of the bundle. Sub-particular (ii) is proved by page 54 of the bundle. Sub-particular (iii) is proved by way of pages 42, 53 and 57 of the bundle. Sub-particulars (iv)-(vi) are proved by way of page 43 of the bundle. In support of our findings are both the print-outs of the messages as outlined above and also Mr Bird's confirmation in his investigatory interview at Bridge Learning Campus (particularly pages 96 to 98) that he did embark on such Facebook exchanges with current and former pupils. Preamble to particular 1 It is alleged in the pre-amble part of particular 1 that the alleged communications with pupils and former pupils were inappropriate. For completeness, we also find proved that the communications did not simply take place but were also inappropriate, notwithstanding any finding in relation to their sexual nature or the sexual motivation behind their posting. We reach this conclusion due to the words used, the nature of the messages as a whole and due to Mr Bird's professional position as the Pastoral Head of his school at the time. They were in clear breach of school policies and were aimed at current or former pupils. This made contact on social media, in such terms, with these pupils wholly inapproporiate without exception. 8 Particular 2 We are satisfied that the communications were of a sexual nature. This must foll