Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

0354480

Teacher's date of birth:

11 June 1975

Date of professional conduct panel:

1 April 2016

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 Hannen, of Buckinghamshire, South East England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 1 April 2016.

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 Hannen: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2016 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 E. Decision and reasons 6 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 Benjamin Hannen Teacher ref number: 0354480 Teacher date of birth: 11 June 1975 NCTL case reference: 13922 Date of determination: 1 April 2016 Former employer: The panel concluded that the school should not be named as this might lead to identification of the pupil A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 1 April 2016 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Benjamin Hannen in a meeting. The panel members were Mr Michael Lewis (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Kathy Thomson (teacher panellist) and Mr Michael Simon (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 14 March 2016. It was alleged that Mr Benjamin Hannen was guilty of conviction of a relevant offence in that: On 28 October 2013 at Aylesbury Crown Court, he was convicted of the offence of sexual activity with a female aged 13 -17 (the defendant does not believe the victim was over 18) and abuse of a position of trust, contrary to Section 16(1) (e) (i) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 23 December 2013, he was: a) sentenced to a community order for 3 years (with a supervision and programme requirement) b) listed on the sex offenders register for 5 years c) ordered to pay costs of £3,500 Mr Benjamin Hannen admitted that he had been convicted of the above offence. Mr Hannen also admitted that the conviction was for a relevant offence. C. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. D. Summary of evidence 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 and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 7B Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and presenting officer representations – pages 9 to 17A Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 19 to 34 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 46 to 90 5 Statement of Agreed Facts The panel received and considered a Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Hannen on 22 September 2015. 6 E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case and has reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Hannen had previously been employed and worked as a teacher at a school in England. From 2 October 2007, h e was emp loyed at another school ('the School') as a science technician. He was suspended from the school wi th effect from 24 September 2012. On 10 October 2013 , Mr Hannen resigned from the school. On 28 October 2013, he was convicted at Aylesbury Crown Court of the offence of sexual activity with a female aged 13 to 17 , contrary to Section 16(1) (e)(i) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. He was sentenced, as set out in the charge on 23 December 2013. Findings of fact The panel's findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that Mr Benjamin Hannen was guilty of conviction of a relevant offence in that: On 28 October 2013 at Aylesbury Crown Court, he was convicted of the offence of sexual activity with a female aged 13 -17 (the defendant does not believe the victim was over 18) and abuse of a position of trust, contrary to Section 16(1) (e) (i) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. On 23 December 2013, he was: a) sentenced to a community order for 3 years (with a supervision and programme requirement); b) listed on the sex offenders register for 5 years c) ordered to pay costs of £3,500 Mr Hannen admits that he was convicted of the offence concerned and he has signed a Statement of Agreed F acts. The panel has also been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Aylesbury Crown Court. The panel finds the facts proved on the basis of Mr Hannen's admissions, the State ment of Agreed F acts and the certificate of conviction. 7 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Mr Hannen admits that the conviction was for a relevant offence . The panel has taken this admission into account, but has formed its own judgment. Although Mr Hannen is a qualified teacher, at the time of the offence and throughout his employment at the school, he was employed as a science technician. Relevance in the context of a relevant offence refers to a person's fitness to be a teacher, rather than their role at the time of the offence. Due to the breach of trust element, Mr Hannen's conviction was for an offence which is relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting. Furthermore, the offence involved sexual activity. The panel finds the offending behaviour that led to the convict ion is relevant to Mr Hannen's suitability to teach. Although Mr Hannen was not a teacher at the time of the offence, the panel still considers that a finding that this conviction is a relevant offence is necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that Mr Hannen has been convicted of a relevant offence. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence , it is 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 should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and having done s o has found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely the maintenance of publ ic confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. The panel concluded that the protection of pupils and other members of the publ ic is, unusually for a case of this type, not relevant. The panel has been provided with a copy of a report in relation to Mr Hannen dated 4 June 2015 by the National Offender Management Service entitled 'Structured Assessment of Risk and Need (Sexual Offending). This confirms that Mr Hannen has engaged fully and s incerely with the programme, is in control of his behaviour and his risk of reoffending is assessed as low. In addition, Mr Hannen states that the only relationship that he had before the summer of 8 2012 was the one with his wife. He states that he is aware of the mistakes that he made and would not let it happen again. However, t he panel considers that pub lic confidence in the profes sion could be undermined if conduct such as that found against Mr Hannen were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel considered that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present . It is importan t that the provisions of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 are properly understood by all those working in an education setting. Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would b e proportionate to impose a prohibition order taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Hannen. In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Hannen. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In th e list of such behaviours, the following is relevant in this case:  sexual misconduct, involving actions of a sexual nature. The offence for which Mr Hannen was convicted involves sexual activity when in a position of trust. However, the panel found that there is no evidence in this case of active exploitation by Mr Hannen of his position of trust as a member of the school staff. Even though there were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being appropriate, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating factors to mil itate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate measure to impose , particularly taking into account the nature of the behaviour in this case. Mr Hannen did have a previously good history and the panel accepts that the incident was out of character . The panel has been provided with numerous character references which universally speak positively of his integrity and good character. There were no specific testimonials about Mr Hannen's teaching, but the panel noted that he has not worked as a teacher for a number of years. There was no evidence that the teacher’s actions were not deliberate . However, the panel is satisfied that Mr Hannen had no intention to break the law and he was unaware of the legal requirements that applied to him as a member of staff at the school. It was argued by his lawyers at the Crown Court that the specific nature of his role as a science technician did not bring him within the definition of 'in a position of trust.' The jury found otherwise but the panel can understand why Mr Hannen held this view. The panel is 9 satisfied that Mr Hannen now has a full understanding of why he has found himself in this position. The panel is of the view that prohibition is both proportionate and appropriate. The panel has decided that the public interest considerations outweig h the interests of Mr Hannen . In forming that opinion, the panel noted that Mr Hannen will remain on the Sex Offenders Register until 23 December 2018 and this is incompatible with being a practising teacher. Accordingly, the panel makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel was mindful that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances that may make it appropriate to allow Mr Hannen to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are behaviours that, if proven, would militat e against a review period being recommen ded. These behaviours include serious sexual misconduct. In this context the panel noted that the sentencing judge took into account the fa ct that Mr Hannen's behaviour, 'went no further than kissing'. The judge also described Mr Hannen's conduct as being, 'within the lowest bracket of the sentencing guidelines'. The court imposed a community order rather than a custodial sentence. In the spectrum of cases that come before the National College the panel is of the view that this case has none of the characterstics of serious sexual misconduct with which it sometimes has to deal. As referred to above, Mr Hannen has fully engaged with the Thames Valley Sex Offender programme and has demonstrated insight into his actions t hat led to the conviction. The panel considers that Mr Hannen's expressions of regret are genuine. The panel further took into account the detailed assessment of risk of repetition conducted by the National Offender Management Service. That assessment classified the risk as low and made no recommendations for 'additional ongoing risk management.' The panel felt the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate. As such, it decided that it would be proportionate i n all the circumstances to recommend that Mr Hannen be allowed to apply for a review after a period of 2 years. 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have considered very carefully the findings and recommendations of the panel in this case. The panel has found the allegations and facts proven, given Mr Hannen has been convicted of a relevant offence. I have considered the public interest in this case. I note the panel considered the particular public interest considerations relevant, namely the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. I also note that the panel concluded the protection of pupils and other members of the public is not relevant. I note that the panel reference a ‘Sexual Offending’ report which confirms Mr Hannen has engaged fully and sincerely with the programme, is in control of his behaviour and his risk of reoffending is low. I agree with the panel however, that the public interest could be undermined if conduct such as that found against Mr Hannen were not treated with the utmost seriousness. I have taken into account the need to balance the public interest with the interests of Mr Hannen. I note that although the offence for which Mr Hannen was convicted involves sexual activity, the panel found no evidence in this case of active exploitation by Mr Hannen, of his position of trust as a member of school staff. The panel accepts that the incident was out of character. The panel is also satisfied that Mr Hannen had no intention to break the law and he was unaware of the legal requirements that applied to him as a member of staff at the school. The panel is of the view that prohibition is both proportionate and appropriate. The panel has decided that the public interest considerations outweigh the interests of Mr Hannen. I agree with the panel’s view. I support the recommendation of the panel that Mr Hannen be prohibited. I agree that this is both proportionate and appropriate. I have also considered the matter of a review period. Whilst any allegation involving sexual misconduct is serious, I agree with the panel’s view that, in the spectrum of cases which come before the NCTL, this case has none of the characteristics of serious sexual misconduct with which it sometimes has to deal. I note the panel’s view that Mr Hannen has demonstrated insight into his actions that led to the conviction, and that his expressions of regret are genuine. I note that the National Offender Management Service assessed the risk of repetition as low, and have made no recommendations for ‘additional ongoing risk management’. The panel felt the findings indicated a situation where a review period would be appropriate, and recommend that Mr Hannen be allowed to apply for a review after a period of 2 years. For the reasons set out above, I agree with the panel’s recommendation. 11 This means that Mr Benjamin Hannen is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 2018, 2 years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Hannen remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Hannen has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Jayne Millions Date: 6 April 2016 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.