Mr Christopher Sillitoe

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 Sillitoe

Teacher reference number: 7510190

Teacher's date of birth: 16 October 1948

Location teacher worked: Essex, east of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 December 2022

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 Sillitoe, formerly employed in insert 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 Sillitoe: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2022 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 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Christopher Sillitoe Teacher ref number: 7510190 Teacher date of birth: 16 October 1948 TRA reference: 19392 Date of determination: 19 December 2022 Former employer: Essex Local Authority Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 19 December 2022 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Christopher Sillitoe. The panel members were Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Clive Ruddle (lay panellist) and Mrs Christine Cunniffe (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lucy Churchill of Birketts 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 Sillitoe that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Sillitoe provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Louise Murphy-Kent of Kingsley Napley LLP, Mr Sillitoe, or any representative for Mr Sillitoe. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 5 October 2022. It was alleged that Mr Sillitoe was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 23 September 2021, he was convicted of eight counts of indecent assault on a woman, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14. Mr Sillitoe admitted the facts of allegation 1 and that his behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence falling short of the standards of behaviour expected of a teacher, as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Sillitoe on 1 August 2022. 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: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 5 to 14 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and representations – pages 15 to 23 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 24 to 81 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 Sillitoe on 1 August 2022 and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 8 August 2022. Decision and reasons 5 The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Sillitoe 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 Sillitoe was employed by Essex Local Authority and worked as a chemistry teacher from 1 September 1974 to 30 September 1987. On 6 May 2019, Essex police received a report of historic sexual abuse allegedly conducted by Mr Sillitoe. On 22 October 2019, Mr Sillitoe was arrested and interviewed by Essex police in relation to historic sexual allegations. [REDACTED] On 23 September 2021, Mr Sillitoe was convicted at Basildon Crown Court of 8 counts of indecent assault against a female and sentenced to a custodial sentence of 50 months. Mr Sillitoe was also placed on the sex offenders register indefinitely. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against y ou pr oved, for these reasons: 1. O n or around 23 September 2021, you were convicted of eight counts of indecent assault on a woman, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 1956 s.14. The panel considered the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Sillitoe on 1 August 2022. In that statement of agreed facts, Mr Sillitoe admitted the particulars of allegation 1. Further, it was admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. 6 The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Basildon Crown Court, which detailed that Mr Sillitoe had been convicted of eight counts of indecent assault on a girl [REDACTED]. In respect of the allegation, Mr Sillitoe was sentenced at Basildon Crown Court on 23 September 2021 to a total of 50 months imprisonment. In addition, he was placed on the Sex Offenders Register, made subject to the Barring List by the Disclosure Barring Service and ordered to pay compensation to Person A. On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Sillitoe, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Sillitoe was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies, and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Sillitoe’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting, in that the conduct that led to his conviction was in relation to Person A, who was a pupil of Mr Sillitoe’s. Further, some of Mr Sillitoe’s 7 conduct took place in the school environment, and on occasion in the presence of another pupil. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offences had an impact on the safety or security of pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Sillitoe’s behaviour in committing the offences could undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. His conduct ran counter to what should have been at the very core of his practice as a teacher with a duty of care towards children. By virtue of his position, Mr Sillitoe was in a position of trust and responsibility in relation to Person A. Mr Sillitoe seriously abused that position. The panel noted that Mr Sillitoe’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This was a case involving offences of sexual activity, which the Advice states is more likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Sillitoe’s suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particul