Mr Courtney Pettifor

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 Courtney Pettifor

Teacher reference number: 19933

Teacher's date of birth: 5 January 1995

Location teacher worked: Cambridgeshire, 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 Courtney Pettifor, formerly employed in Cambridgeshire, 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 Courtney Pettifor: 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 6 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Statement of agreed facts 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Courtney Pettifor Teacher ref number: 1738730 Teacher date of birth: 5 January 1995 TRA reference: 19933 Date of determination: 19 December 2022 Former employer: Witchford Village College, Witchford 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 Courtney Pettifor. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist) and Ms Penny Griffith (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Natalie Kent 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 Pettifor that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Pettifor provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Carolyn Thackstone of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors, Mr Pettifor or his representative, Mrs Nathalie Potter of Olliers Solicitors. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 14 December 2022. It was alleged that Mr Pettifor was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with one or more pupils in that he sent emails to them between approximately January 2020 to January 2021 which: a) were thousands in number; b) included messages sent late at night and/or during holidays and/or weekends and/or during national lockdowns; c) were inappropriate in tone; d) used “x” to denote kisses; e) included him ‘sending hugs’ or words to that effect; f) used emojis including hearts and/or winking faces; g) used one or more nicknames; h) stated “you love me” or words to that effect; i) stated “you mean more to me than you realise” or words to that effect j) using terms of endearment including but not limited to: i. babe; ii. sweetheart; iii. darling; iv. my lovely; v. special girl; k) requested that one or more pupils send an image of themselves to him; l) commented on one or more pupils’ physical appearance, including but not limited to: i. stating that they could be a model; 5 ii. stating that they were stunning; iii. referring to their figure; iv. asking about their tan lines; m) stated ‘I’ll run past your window every day up until Sunday from now, just for you x’ or words to that effect, with reference to passing her home address; n) requested that one or more pupils contact him using your personal contact details once they left the school; o) offered free tutoring to one or more pupils; p) offered to chat to one or more pupils using Zoom; q) alerted and/or encouraged one or more pupils towards his use of TikTok; r) provided his home address; 2. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 was notwithstanding: a) advice and /or warnings issued to him by the school in respect of his conduct towards pupils in or around: i. Autumn 2019; ii. Spring 2020; iii. Autumn 2020; iv. December 2020 b) a parent of Pupil C telephoning him to inform him that his contact with Pupil C was blurring professional boundaries; c) a parent of Pupil D contacting him to request that he stop contacting Pupil D. 3. He failed to notify the school of one or more safeguarding concerns in respect of: a) Pupil D b) Pupil F 4. He failed to report the contact from one or more parents at Allegation 2(b) and/or 2(c) to the school. 6 5. During a school investigatory interview in respect of his alleged conduct at Allegation 1 he claimed that he had been contacting: a) Pupil D as part of a formal mentoring arrangement when this was not in fact the case; b) Pupil C as a result of personal ties to her family when in fact a parent of Pupil C had contacted him as at Allegation 2(b). 6. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegations 3 and/or 5 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr Pettifor admitted the facts of allegations 1 to 6 and that his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute as set out in the response to the notice of referral signed by Mr Pettifor on 18 January 2022 and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Pettifor on 24 March 2022. Preliminary applications Whilst there were no preliminary applications, the panel did consider whether there was a need to amend allegation 4 to correct the reference to 2(a) and 2(b) where it should have referred to 2(b) and 2(c). The panel were referred to the power to amend an allegation under 5.82, where it is “in the interests of justice to do so”. The panel considered that to make this amendment would not change the substance of the allegation and would not result in prejudice to either the teacher or the TRA. The amendment merely corrected what appeared to be a typographical error. The panel therefore determined to amend the allegation accordingly. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 6 to 8 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 10 to 22 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 24 to 34 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 36 to 962 7 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 964 to 970 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 Pettifor and the presenting officer on 24 March 2022. Decision and reasons 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 Pettifor for the allegations 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 Pettifor was employed as a PE teacher at Witchford Village College (‘the School’) between 18 January 2018 and 23 March 2021. In the autumn term of 2019, Individual H at the time raised concerns with Individual B, [REDACTED], regarding Mr Pettifor’s relationships and mentoring of Year 10/11 girls. Individual B addressed this with Mr Pettifor, and Mr Pettifor was advised to spend less time with KS4 girls during social time as well as being advised how to safeguard himself during 1:1 meetings. In the spring term of 2020, Individual B reported that he was directed to speak to Mr Pettifor due to his closeness with some Year 11 female pupils and his frequency of being around them. Individual B continued to monitor Mr Pettifor and reminded him again in the autumn term to keep his distance from Year 11 pupils during social time. During the autumn term of 2020, a formal investigation was carried out by the [REDACTED], Individual C. During the investigation, it transpired that a parent of one of the students, Pupil C, called Mr Pettifor during the first lockdown between March to June 2020, and made him aware that she was unhappy with the tone and lack of formality of his emails with her daughter. In December 2020, the [REDACTED], Individual D, spoke to Mr Pettifor informally following concerns that were raised by a member of staff about his interactions with certain Year 11 students. 8 On 13 January 2021, Pupil A contacted Individual C with screenshots of emails that Mr Pettifor had sent to a student, who had since left the School, when she was in Year 11. Individual C sent the email she received to the [REDACTED], Witness A. The emails showed Mr Pettifor sending kisses to Pupil B and writing in a manner which was very informal. On 14 January 2021, Individual D commissioned Witness A to carry out an investigation; she then contacted the LADO and EPM. [REDACTED]. Witness A gave Individual C access to Mr Pettifor’s emails to students who would have been in KS4 from January 2020 to January 2021. The School found thousands of emails to various pupils. On 28 January 2021, the LADO emailed confidential minutes of the meeting to Witness A confirming that the police would not be involved at this stage but that they had logged Mr Pettifor’s name should an incident come to their attention. The LADO confirmed concerns regarding the content of the emails and requested a follow up meeting after the School’s disciplinary procedure was complete to decide next steps. On 23 March 2021, the disciplinary meeting concluded that gross misconduct had taken place and Mr Pettifor was subsequently dismissed. 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: