Mr Christopher Charlton

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 Christopher Charlton

Teacher reference number: 8909966

Teacher's date of birth: 17 December 1958

Location teacher worked: Essex, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 June to 4 July 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 Christopher Charlton, formerly employed in Essex, East of England.

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 Charlton: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 7 Summary of evidence 13 Documents 13 Witnesses 14 Decision and reasons 14 Findings of fact 15 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 33 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 37 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Christopher Charlton Teacher ref number: 8909966 Teacher date of birth: 17 December 1958 TRA reference: 16680 Date of determination: 4 July 2024 Former employer: Greenwood School, Essex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 27 June to 4 July 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Christopher Charlton. The panel members were Mr Duncan Tilley (Lay Panellist – in the chair), Mr Alan Wells (Former Teacher Panellist) and Ms Gill Lyon (Teacher Panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lucy Mosley of Blake Morgan Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson Solicitors. Mr Charlton did not attend the hearing 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 Proceedings dated 17 April 2024. It was alleged that Mr Charlton was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: Whilst employed as a PE and Maths Teacher at Greenwoods School (‘the School’) between 1986-1993: 1. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil A in or around the late 1980s to early 1990s in that he on one or more occasions: a. Hugged and/or cuddled Pupil A. b. Rubbed and/or touched Pupil A’s back. c. Touched Pupil A’s bottom. d. Rubbed and/or pushed his genitals against Pupil A’s body. e. Lay on Pupil A and/or did the ‘worm’ on Pupil A when she was laying on the grass. f. Placed his hand up Pupil A’s skirt. g. Placed his fingers in Pupil A’s vagina. 2. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil B between 1988 to 1991, in that he on one or more occasions: a. Tickled Pupil B. b. Hugged and/or cuddled Pupil B. c. Touched Pupil B’s breasts above and/or under her clothes. d. Pushed his groin and/or genitals into Pupil B’s body and/or stomach. e. Touched and/or attempted to touch Pupil B’s vagina over her knickers and/or tried to take her knickers off. f. Placed Pupil B’s hand on his penis and/or allowed Pupil B to masturbate his penis. 5 g. Kissed Pupil B’s face and/or head. h. Touched and/or smacked Pupil B’s bottom. 3. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil E between 1991 to 1992 in that he on one or more occasions: a. Touched Pupil E’s leg with his hand. b. Touched and/or smacked Pupil E’s bottom. c. Rubbed his genitals and/or groin area against Pupil E’s bottom. d. Held Pupil E by her hips 4. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil F between 1986-1990, in that on one or more occasions: a. He hugged and/or cuddled Pupil F. b. He held Pupil F close so that he could feel her breasts on his body and/or she could feel his genitals on her body 5. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Pupil I between or around 1986- 1990 in that he on one or more occasions: a. Kissed Pupil I whilst clothed and/or naked. b. Hugged and/or cuddled Pupil I whilst clothed and/or naked. c. Pushed his genitals and/or groin area against Pupil I’s body. d. Touched and/or squeezed Pupil I’s breasts. e. Touched and/or rubbed Pupil I’s bottom. f. Touched Pupil I under her skirt. g. Placed Pupil I’s hand and/or directed Pupil I’s hand on his penis and instructed her and/or allowed her to masturbate him. 6. He engaged in and/or developed inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour towards one or more pupils, including by, on one or more occasions: 6 a. Saying to Pupil A ‘I will have you another time’ or words to that effect. b. Saying Pupil A ‘next time there will be more you don’t want to be restrained again’ or words to that effect. c. Saying to Pupil A when referring to her pyjamas, ‘they would look nice on the floor’, or words to that effect. d. Putting his arm around Pupil A and stating that they ‘hadn’t spent time alone together for ages’ or words to that effect. e. Telling Pupil B that she was his ‘special girl’ or words to that effect. f. Writing letters to Pupil B. g. Telling Pupil B in person and/or via letter that he loved her, or words to that effect. h. Telling Pupil B that she ‘drove you crazy’ or words to that effect. i. Leaving notes for Pupil E. j. Gifting Pupil E with roses. k. Rubbing Pupil E’s face. l. Telling Pupil E that he loved her and wanted her to know this or words to that effect. m. Calling Pupil I via telephone. 7. His conduct towards Pupils A-I as may be found proven at allegations 1-6 above was notwithstanding that one or more pupils: a. Were aged under 16 during one or more of the incidents. b. Did not consent legally and/or as a matter of fact to sexual contact with him on one or more occasions. 8. His behaviour as may be found proven at allegations 1-6 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 7 Mr Charlton denied the alleged facts. He also denied that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Ms Quirk confirmed that the that the applicable disciplinary procedures were the TRA's Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020 ("the Procedures"). Preliminary applications Application to proceed in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Charlton. This application had already been made at a case management hearing (“CMH”) on 14 June 2024. However, the panel at the CMH did not consider it appropriate for it to make a hypothetical decision in relation to a future application, and concluded that this application was better made at the start of the final hearing. The panel at the CMH stated: “The fact that Mr Charlton has, pursuant to this application, been put on express notice of the issue and the TRA’s position will be something the panel will be able to consider at the Hearing, along with other relevant factors referred to it and having received legal advice.” The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba [2016] TRAA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 5.23 and 5.24 of the Procedures and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. The panel was satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to bring the hearing to Mr Charlton’s attention. He had responded to the Notice, and was clearly aware of the TRA proceedings. In his response, the teacher had indicated that he wished to have no involvement in the hearing. Mr Charlton had not objected to the hearing proceeding in his absence. The panel was shown an email dated 28 March 2024 from Mr Charlton to the presenting officer. That email stated “I would like to reiterate that I will not be participating in the hearing”. Further, the panel was provided with a statement from Mr Charlton dated 9 May 8 2024 which stated “[REDACTED] I do not feel I can take part in the hearing and do not intend to do so”. Most recently, the TRA sent Mr Charlton a proposed hearsay application by email on 25 June 2021. Mr Charlton responded with his comments on the application. He did not state that his position had changed, nor did he advise that he wished to participate in the hearing. The panel therefore determined that Mr Charlton had voluntarily waived his right to participate in the hearing. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Charlton’s absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 5.47 of the Procedures. It had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mr Charlton would not be in attendance and would not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. On balance, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Charlton for the following reasons: • The panel was satisfied that the teacher’s absence was voluntary and he had waived his right to attend. • There was no indication that the teacher might attend at a future date. As such, the panel concluded that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time, particularly in this case given the length of time between the allegations and the hearing. • A number of witnesses were scheduled to give evidence and would be inconvenienced by an adjournment, as would the other participants in this hearing. In addition, the panel took into account the vulnerability of the witnesses and any potential effect of delay upon them. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearin