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:

1565962

Teacher's date of birth:

24 September 1989

Location teacher worked:

Surrey, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

3 to 4 June 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 Christopher Austen formerly employed in Surrey, South East England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on date month year.

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 Christopher Austen: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2019 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 2 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Christopher Miguel Campo Austen Teacher ref number: 1565962 Teacher date of birth: 24 September 1989 TRA reference: 17272 Date of determination: 4 June 2019 Former employer: Tolworth Girls’ School and Sixth Form, Surrey A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 3 June 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Christopher Austen. The panel members were Professor Roger Woods (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Gail Goodman (teacher panellist) and Mr John Elliott (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Kara O’Neill of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the Agency was Mr Rory Clarkson of DAC Beachcroft LLP solicitors. Mr Austen was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 3 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 29 March 2019. It was alleged that Mr Austen was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. He engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student 2 between October and December 2016 in that he; a) engaged in a sexual relationship with a sixth form student, and failed to determine which school Student 2 attended or disclose the school at which he was teaching; b) failed to end the relationship when he became aware that Student 2 studied at the School; c) failed to end the relationship at all, in that Student 2 was responsible for its termination; d) attended Student 2’s place of work after the relationship had ended, to engage in inappropriate communications with a view to recommencing their relationship; e) failed to disclose any of the above to the School either during or after the events in question. 2. He knew or ought to have known in respect of his conduct at allegation 1 that he acted with a lack of professional judgement and that his behaviour was inappropriate. C. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the Agency has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). 4 The panel decided to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understands that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making the decision, the panel noted that the teacher waived his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to their attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel were satisfied that Mr Austen was aware of the proceedings and indicated in his response to the notice of proceedings that he would not attend and confirmed this in further email communications. In one email he said ‘I am past the point of caring… do what you want’. The panel therefore considered that the teacher voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in Mr Austen attending the hearing. The panel had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel, however, had the benefit of representations made by Mr Austen through his responses to the notice of proceedings. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided. Should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel may take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel is 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. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. However, it considers that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses that are in attendance; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing. The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to amend part of allegation 2. The panel has the power, in the interests of justice, to amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. 5 Before making an amendment, the panel was required to consider any representations by the presenting officer in regard to allegation 2, who put forward to the panel that there was merely a typographic error contained in the allegation. The panel concluded that the amendment proposed, being a correction of a typographical error, did not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. There was no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently should the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegation as proposed by the presenting officer through changing allegation ‘2’ to allegation ‘1’ within allegation 2. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: chronology, identification key and list of roles – pages 1 to 4 Section 2: notice of hearing and response – pages 5 to 14 Section 3: Agency witness statements – pages 15 to 24 Section 4: Agency documents – pages 25 to 272 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer:  Witness A, member of the senior leadership team;  Witness B, member of the senior leadership team. Mr Austen was not present at the hearing and was not represented. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. 6 The panel confirmed that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Austen was employed at Tolworth Girls’ School (the “School”) as a newly qualified modern languages teacher from 1 September 2016. It was alleged that Mr Austen engaged in an inappropriate sexual relationship with Student 2 between October and December 2016. Following a disciplinary hearing in April 2018, Mr Austen was dismissed from the School. Findings of fact The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Student 2 between October and December 2016 in that you; a) engaged in a sexual relationship with a sixth form student, and failed to determine which school Student 2 attended or disclose the school at which you were teaching; The panel considered all of the evidence before them. In particular the panel noted that the teacher and Student 2, during an interview with the investigating officer, both admitted that the relationship between them was ‘a sexual relationship’. Therefore the panel found this part of allegation proved. The panel were mindful that Mr Austen and Student 2 met outside school when Student 2 was working in a super