Mr Christopher Miles Pearson

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 Miles Pearson

Teacher reference number: 1710404

Teacher's date of birth: 1 August 1979

Location teacher worked: Cobham, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 October 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 Miles Pearson, formerly employed in Cobham, South East 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 Miles Pearson Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Christopher Miles Pearson Teacher ref number: 1710404 Teacher date of birth: 1 August 1979 TRA reference: 16961 Date of determination: 4 October 2024 Former employer: Cobham Free School, Cobham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 4 October 2024, to consider the case of Mr Christopher Miles Pearson (“Mr Pearson”). The panel members were Ms Jackie Hutchings (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist) and Mrs Dawn Hawkins (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Pearson that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Pearson provided a signed statement of agreed facts. Mr Pearson admitted the facts of the allegation, that his conduct may bring the profession into disrepute and that his conduct amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Mr Pearson. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 16 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Pearson was guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 3 February 2022, he was convicted at Croydon Crown Court of the offence of three counts of rape and one count of indecency with a child which occurred between 1994 – 1996 and to which he was sentenced on 10 February 2022 to 7 years imprisonment. Mr Pearson admitted that he was convicted of the above offences and that he is guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or of having been convicted of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of meeting and teacher’s responses – pages 3 to 11 Section 2: Statement of agreed facts and Presenting Officer representations – pages 12 to 19 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 20 to 69 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Pearson on 22 November 2023. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. 5 In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Pearson for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Pearson was employed as a music teacher and head of year 10 at Cobham Free School (the “School”) between 1 September 2014 and 15 December 2017. On 17 October 2017, the School became aware of the police investigation into historical sexual abuse allegations concerning Mr Pearson and he was subsequently suspended from the School. 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. On or around 3 February 2022, you were convicted at Croydon Crown Court of the offence of three counts of rape and one count of indecency with a child which occurred between 1994 – 1996 and to which you were sentenced on 10 February 2022, to 7 years imprisonment. The panel was provided with a Certificate of Conviction confirming that Mr Pearson was convicted of the alleged offences (three counts of rape and one count of indecency with a child) on 3 February 2022. The panel noted that these offences occurred between 1994 and 1996 as set out in the sentencing transcript and Mr Pearson was not a teacher at this time. On 10 February 2022, Mr Pearson was sentenced to 7 years imprisonment and was also required to sign the Sex Offender’s Register for life. The panel accepted the Certificate of Conviction as conclusive proof of the convictions. The bundle contained an ‘outcome of court trial’ from the Metropolitan police which also confirmed Mr Pearson’s convictions of the above offences. In a statement of agreed facts, Mr Pearson admitted that the facts of the allegation against him, that they amount to conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute and were a conviction, at any time, of a relevant offence. The panel found allegation 1 proved. 6 Findings as to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those allegations amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others, the responsibilities and duties of teachers in relation to the safeguarding and welfare of pupils and considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel also considered whether Mr Pearson’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that the offence of sexual activity, child cruelty, controlling and/or coercive behaviour and violence were relevant. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. The panel considered that Mr Pearson’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. The panel therefore found that Mr Pearson’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Conviction of a Relevant Offence The offence was committed by Mr Pearson prior to the coming into force of Teachers Standards, therefore the panel had regard to its knowledge and experience of teaching standards at that time and considered that upholding the rule of law had been of prime importance then, and that Mr Pearson had breached this in his conduct. By the time of Mr Pearson’s conviction, he was a teacher. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting. Whilst the offences for which Mr Pearson had been convicted did not take place whilst he was a teacher, they related to the rape of a pre-pubescent, school aged child on multiple occasions. Furthermore, the offending took place, in a setting in which the victim was supposed to be being cared for and was 7 described by the Judge during his sentencing remarks as ‘not merely impulsive behaviour.’ The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Pearson’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Pearson was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Pearson’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed, and which the Advice states is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity, child cruelty, controlling and/or coercive behaviour and violence. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such an offence is likely to be considered a “relevant offence”. The panel considered that this case was at the more serious end of the possible spectrum. This was conduct that was planned and involved the sexual abuse of a young child on multiple occasions in a setting in which the child was supposed to be being looked after and cared for. The panel took into account that the conduct took place almost 30 years ago with no suggestion that the nature of the offending had continued going forwards. Whilst the Judge referred to an ‘impressive character reference’ and Mr Pearson’s ‘positive good character since the offending’ the panel also noted the Judge referred to the fact there was no evidence of remorse and that Mr Pearson denied the charges and subjected the victim to having to participate in a trial. In considering all of the above, the panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour th