Mr Charles Hatfield

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 Charles Hatfield

Teacher reference number: 3971450

Teacher's date of birth: 06 August 1991

Location teacher worked: Milton Keynes, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 07 August 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 Charles Hatfield, formerly employed in Milton Keynes, South east England.

Mr Charles Hatfield: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2023 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 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Charles Hatfield Teacher ref number: 3971450 Teacher date of birth: 6 August 1991 TRA reference: 20233 Date of determination: 7 August 2023 Former employer: Charles Warren Academy, Buckinghamshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 7 August 2023, to consider the case of Mr Charles Hatfield (“Mr Hatfield”). The panel members were Mr Ronan Tyrer (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist), Ms Rachel Kruger (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Hatfield was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save for parts of the hearing that were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 24 May 2023. It was alleged that Mr Hatfield was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Classroom Teacher at the Charles Warren Academy, he: 1. On or around 14 December 2020, brought drugs, namely the class B drug, Ketamine onto the school’s premises; 2. As a result of the conduct above at Allegation 1, on or around 15 August 2021, he received a conditional caution, with the condition to complete a drugs course by 26 September 2021. Mr Hatfield admitted the facts of allegations 1 and 2 and also that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Additional Documents Mr Hatfield applied to admit a bundle of teacher documents, which consisted of Mr Hatfield’s witness statement, letters from his [redacted] and character references. The aforementioned documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession May 2020 (“the Procedures ”), and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from Mr Hatfield and presenting officer in respect of this application. Mr Hatfield explained that two character references were on annual leave and so there was difficulty in contacting them. The panel considered that Mr Hatfield was not repres ented at the hearing. No objection was raised by the presenting officer to Mr Hatfield’s application. Under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that all of the documents were relevant to the case. The panel acknowledged that the witness statement was relevant to address Mr Hatfield’s position in respect of the allegations. The panel noted that there was nothing in Mr Hatfield’s 5 witness statement that conflicted with the Statement of Agreed Facts. The character references and letters from Mr Hatfield’s [redacted] would be particularly relevant, in the event that the case proceeds to consider a recommendation to the Secretary of State. With regard to the overall question of fairness, the panel noted that if the witness statement of Mr Hatfield was admitted, the presenting officer would have the opportunity to ask Mr Hatfield questions in respect of his recent witness statement and other documents. The panel concluded that it would be fair, by the reasons outlined above to admit the documents. The panel decided to admit each of the documents and these were paginated as follows: Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 169 to 186 • Witness Statement of Mr Hatfield dated 12 July 2023 – pages 169 – 176 • Letters from [redacted] dated 25 July 2023 – pages 176 – 179 • Character References – pages 180 – 186 Excluding the Public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures to exclude the public f rom all or part of the hearing. This followed a request by the teacher that any part of the hearing pertaining to his [redacted] should be heard in private. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations under the second limb of paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures for the public to be excluded from this part of the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request by the teacher was a reasonable one given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s [redacted] being placed in the public domain. The panel did not consider that there were any steps short of excluding the public from these parts of the hearing that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s [redacted]. The panel took account of the letters from Mr Hatfield’s [redacted]. 6 The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request r an contrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct an d/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the case continues, any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. The panel considered that in the circumstances of this case that the public interest will be satisfied by these public announcements. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 13 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 15 to 17 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 168 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 169 to 185 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The TRA did not call any witnesses to give evidence at the hearing. The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Hatfield during 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 Hatfield was employed at Charles Warren Academy (“the School”) between September 2019 and April 2021 as a teacher. 7 On or around 14 December 2020, a small package containing a white substance was found at the School by the Principal in the staff cubicles. The following day a staff meeting was held to inform staff members and to urge anyone with any information to come forward. Following this meeting, Mr Hatfield confessed that the package was his and that it had accidentally fallen out of his wallet. Mr Hatfield confirmed that the drug was Ketamine. Mr Hatfield disclosed that he had not used the substance within the School. Mr Hatfield was suspended from the School on 16 December 2020 pending further investigation. A disciplinary hearing took place on 22 April 2021 and he was dismissed for gross misconduct. The package was subsequently tested by police and they confirmed that the substance was Ketamine, a Class B drug, and approximately 0.476 grams. The police provided a conditional caution to Mr Hatfield on 15 August 2021. As part of the caution, Mr Hatfield was required to complete a drugs course by 26 September 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. O n or around 14 December 2020, brought drugs, namely the class B drug, Ketamine onto the school’s premises; Mr Hatfield admitted this allegation. The panel had sight of the notes from the meeting between Mr Hatfield and the Principal on 15 December 2020 where Mr Hatfield confirmed that the substance found on the school premises, in the staff toilet, belonged to him and was Ketam ine. The panel considered Mr Hatfield’s handwritten statement to the police on 14 February 2021, the Statement of Agreed Facts and Mr Hatfield’s witness statement. Mr Hatfield said “As per the admission I made to the Principal of Charles Warren Academy, to the Police and to the Disciplinary Hearing Panel, I admit bringing Ketamine onto the school’s premises.” The panel noted that all of Mr Hatfield’s accounts of the incident were consistent. The panel also had sight of the Principal’s statement to the police dated 17 December 2020, which corroborated Mr Hatfield’s acco