Mr Billy Hart

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 Billy Hart

Teacher reference number: 4056204

Teacher's date of birth: 11 March 1996

Location teacher worked: Peterborough, East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 3 to 4 June 2024

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 Billy Hart, formerly employed in Peterborough, East England.

Mr Billy Hart: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Billy Hart Teacher ref number: N/A Teacher date of birth: 11 March 1996 TRA reference: 20241 Date of determination: 3 June 2024 Former employer: City of Peterborough Academy, Peterborough Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 3 to 4 June 2024 via virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Billy Hart. The panel members were Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Laura Mullin (lay panellist) and Mr Philip Thompson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Katherine Hannigan of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Hart was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 21 March 2024. It was alleged that Mr Hart was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. In or around March 2021, he: a. corresponded with Child A using social media; b. requested a video of/from Child A; c. offered payment in exchange for a video of/from Child A; d. paid for a video of/from Child A; e. received a video of/from Child A. 2. In or around March 2021, he: a. corresponded with Child B using social media; b. requested a video of/from Child B; c. offered payment in exchange for a video of/from Child B; d. paid for a video of/from Child B; e. received a video of/from Child B. 3. He sent a photograph/photographs of himself in the bath to Child A and/or Child B. 4. The video requested and/or paid for and/or received from Child A and/or Child B as may be found proven in allegation 1 and/or 2 was a video; a. showing either Child A or Child B tied up; b. of a sexual nature. 5. His behaviour as may be found proven at allegations 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. In his response to the notice of referral dated 13 March 2022, Allegations 1, 2, and 4a appear to have been admitted by the teacher. Allegations 3, 4b and 5 appear to be not admitted by the teacher. The teacher appears to have admitted that his conduct (as at Allegations 1, 2, and 4a only) amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher, following an application from the presenting officer. The panel was satisfied that the TRA complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1)(a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the notice of hearing complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession, updated May 2020 (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures, to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1, that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones:- 1. The panel was satisfied that the teacher was aware of proceedings. The teacher did not respond to the notice of hearing dated 21 March 2024. However, the panel had sight of the teacher’s response to the notice of referral dated 13 March 2022, in which the teacher had provided his address for all future TRA correspondence, which was used for the notice of hearing. The panel also had s ight of tracking information from Royal Mail, which confirmed that the notice of hearing had been successfully delivered to the teacher’s address on 23 March 2024. The tracking information confirmed that the delivery had been signed for by “B Hart” and a signature was present. Therefore, the panel considered that the teacher had waived his right to be present at the hearing, in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place; 2. The panel noted there had been multiple attempts made by the presenting officer’s firm to engage with Mr Hart as part of these proceedings. Mr Hart did appear to have 6 initially engaged with the presenting officer’s firm, by telephone, on 17 August 2022 prior to a hearing being listed. Mr Hart had also responded to the notice of referral on 13 March 2022, in which he had requested that the allegations were considered without a hearing (but Mr Hart was informed that this was not possible as in his response, he had not admitted all of the allegations). The panel had sight of multiple letters and emails sent to Mr Hart from the presenting officer’s firm, in relation to adding documents to the proposed bundle for the hearing, and in respect of Mr Hart’s attendance at a hearing. However, Mr Hart did not respond. T he panel had sight of telephone attendance notes, in which it is recorded that the presenting officer’s firm also attempted to contact Mr Hart by telephone in October 2023, but was unsuccessful. As part of a separate application bundle, the panel had sight of the latest letter sent to Mr Hart dated 29 May 2024, which asked Mr Hart to confirm whether or not he intended to be present at the hearing. This letter was sent by both recorded delivery and email. The panel had sight of tracking information from Royal Mail which showed that the letter could not be delivered as the recipient was no longer at the address. The presenting officer confirmed that Mr Hart had not contacted the TRA to provide a new address. The panel considered that Mr Hart had been given numerous opportunities to add documents to the bundle, and to confirm his attendance or non-attendance at the hearing. The panel considered that, based on his behaviour, Mr Hart had deliberately and voluntarily refused to engage with the TRA; 3. The panel did not consider that an adjournment would result in the teacher attending voluntarily; 4. The panel considered the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events. The panel noted that the majority of the allegations were admitted by the teacher. The panel noted that it did not have the benefit of representations made by the teacher, and was unable to ascertain any lines of defence. However, the panel also noted that there were two witnesses that had been called to give evidence, and the panel would be able to test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points that would be favourable to the teacher, as reasonably available on the evidence. The panel noted that insofar as there was hearsay evidence against the teacher in the bundle, a hearsay notice would be provided in due course which would allow the panel to consider whether to admit that evidence and the appropriate weight to be applied (if admitted); 5. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it, and were these gaps to arise during the course of the hearing, the panel noted it would be able to take such gaps into account when considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available, 7 and in considering whether the presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account; 6. The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk if proven that the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching; 7. The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession; and 8. The panel noted that there were two witnesses present at the hearing, who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for them to return again. The panel considered that an adjournment may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that the teacher had plainly waived his right to appear in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. The panel also considered that, by taking such measures referred to above to address any unfairness insofar as possible, and taking account of the in