Mr Christopher Harrison

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 Harrison

Teacher reference number: 9651283

Teacher's date of birth: 15 September 1970

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 November 2024 to 27 November 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 Harrison formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands

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 Harrison: Professional conduct panel hearing Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Christopher Harrison Teacher ref number: 9651283 Teacher date of birth: 15 September 1970 TRA reference: 20111 Date of determination: 27 November 2024 Former employer: St George’s Academy, Sleaford Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 25 to 27 November 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Christopher Harrison. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Terry Hyde (former teacher panellist) and Mrs Anila Rai (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nicholas West of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Harrison was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 30 August 2024. It was alleged that Mr Harrison was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst a teacher at St George’s Academy between 1 September 2020 and 16 April 2021 he: 1. Made inappropriate physical contact with one or more students in his Year 11 Intervention classes including: a) On or around 4 December 2020 he gave Student B a massage on her shoulders while in the intervention group; b) On multiple occasions including on or around 9 December stroked Student A’s arm and/or back; c) On an unknown date rested his head against Student A’s hip once when she was standing near his desk and/or; d) On multiple occasions stroked Student B’s arm and/or back 2. Used inappropriate language and/or behaviour in his interactions with his Year 11 Intervention Class and/or other classes, examples of which are set out in Schedule 1. 3. The behaviour described at 1 and/or 2 above was sexual and/or sexually motivated. Schedule 1: 1. On one or more occasions he told inappropriate jokes and/or made innuendos or sexual remarks including for a Trigon problem, he used “sex on hard concrete always hurts oval areas” or words to that effect as a mnemonic for the SOHCAHTOA formula; 2. On or around 9 December 2020, he spoke inappropriately about his female tennis coach having an amazing backhand to one or more pupils; 3. On an unknown date, when there was an IT issue he said: a) “I could curl up under the table and cry” or words to that effect and when Student E said “I could join you” or words to that effect and he replied “easy tiger” or words to that effect; and/or b) He added something like “you’re way out of my league” or words to that effect; 5 4. On an unknown date, when a pupil made a comment about being in a downward direction in respect to Maths and he responded “you’d know all about that” or words to that effect; 5. On an unknown date, when discussing with two female pupils about additional support, when Student A responded with “whenever, I’m easy” or words to that effect, he said “well I know that” or words to that effect; 6. On an unknown date he used a graph as an example of attractiveness and age for the axis; 7. On one or more occasions he discussed his family life to one or more pupils including: a. making jokes about [REDACTED] b. joking about [REDACTED], and/or c. stating “marriage is best to be avoided” or words to that effect; 8. On or around 16 September 2020 he tapped a Student X on the back of the hand with a ruler and told him “you’re a very naughty boy” or words to that effect; 9. On or around 11 December 2020 he told Student B “hey gorgeous, missed you” or words to that effect; 10. On one or more occasions he used swear words in front of one or more pupils and stated “I will put my mask on so you cannot see me” or words to that effect; 11. Told Student B that she was an “attractive girl” or words to that effect; 12. Told the class that he had called a girl at his previous school a “hoe” and/or said to her that “she was so much of a hoe that her knickers say ‘next’ on them”, or words to that effect; and/or 13. Stuck a sticker onto Student A’s chest just above her breast. Mr Harrison made no admission of fact prior to the hearing. 6 Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Harrison was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Harrison. 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). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Harrison in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel noted an email from Mr Harrison to the TRA on 3 May 2024 which attached a written submissions document he prepared to reply to the allegations. This document stated, “This will be my final communication with you on this matter”. The panel therefore concluded that Mr Harrison’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Harrison had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Harrison was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay, which could have been significant as two of the witnesses were considered vulnerable. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Harrison was neither present nor represented. Application to amend an allegation The presenting officer made an application to amend allegation 2 to insert the wording in bold, “Used inappropriate language and/or behaviour in your interactions with your Year 11 Intervention Class and/or other classes examples of which are set out in Schedule 1”. The panel noted that Mr Harrison had not been informed of the proposed change to this allegation. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. 7 The panel considered that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and scope of the allegation in that it would still relate to the same examples of misconduct which have been addressed by Mr Harrison in his written responses. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendment did not amount to a material change to the allegation. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. Accordingly, the panel did grant this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Application to adopt special measures The panel considered an application from the presenting officer for special measures to be adopted in respect of two witnesses, Student A and B. This application was made on the basis that these two witnesses should be considered vulnerable, and therefore that they should be allowed a witness supporter to be present when giving their evidence. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. The panel considered Student A and Student B were vulnerable witnesses within the meaning of paragraph 5.102 of the Procedures which states that: “A person is a vulnerable witness if the quality of the person’s evidence is likely to be adversely affected at a professional conduct panel hearing…this may include any witness…(iv) who is the alleged victim of conduct which is the subject of an allegation against the teacher of a sexual nature”. The panel went on to consider paragraph 5.103 of the Procedures which states that: “The panel will adopt such measures as it considers appropriate in order to safeguard the interests of a vulnerable witness, which may include (amongst other things) … (vii) the attendance of a witness supporter”. The panel considered the balance of the potential impact on the welfare of the vulnerable witnesses against the interests of justice in determining whether the vulnerable witnesses should be permitted to give evidence with a witness supporter present. The panel was satisfied that no unfairness would result by Student A and Student B having a witness supporter present whilst they give their evidence. The panel therefore granted the application. Application for statement of witness to be admitted as hearsay 8 The presenting officer made an applicati