Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

3645948

Teacher's date of birth:

13 September 1982

Location teacher worked:

Hove, East Sussex

Date of professional conduct panel:

1 April 2019

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 Craig Bozic formerly employed in Hove, East Sussex.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 1 April 2019.

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 Craig Bozic: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Craig Bozic Teacher ref number: 3645948 Teacher date of birth: 13 September 1982 TRA reference: 17216 Date of determination: 1 April 2019 Former employer: King’s School, Hove A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 1 April 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Craig Bozic. The panel members were Ms Sarah Evans (teacher panellist – in the chair), Dr Robert Cawley (teacher panellist) and Ms Gill Tomlinson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Claire Watson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Stephen Hocking of DAC Beachcroft LLP solicitors. Mr Craig Bozic was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 23 November 2018. It was alleged that Mr Craig Bozic was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst applying for employment as a maths teacher at King’s School, Hove, he: i. provided false information regarding his degree qualifications in order to obtain a teaching position; ii. was dishonest in doing so to obtain an advantage for himself, namely paid employment at King’s School, Hove. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations have been taken as not admitted. C. Preliminary applications The panel first considered the potential prejudicial effect on itself, as an impartial tribunal, as one member of the panel had seen additional evidence not included in the bundle. This evidence comprised of administrative documents relating to the initial referral and decision to proceed to hearing. The panel applied the test of whether the risk of prejudice was so grave that no direction, could reasonably be expected to remove that prejudice from the mind of the panellist, and whether the teacher’s right to a fair hearing was compromised. The panel’s focus over the course of the hearing was on whether the evidence heard and admissible documents were sufficient to prove that it is more probable than not that the alleged facts occurred. That focus, combined with the directions given by the legal adviser for the panellist to put other evidence out of their mind upheld the teacher’s right to a fair hearing. This was an experienced and trained panellist, well used to putting inadmissible evidence from their mind when reaching a decision. The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Bozic. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). 5 The panel had determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel had noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel had taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1. The notice was sent to an address the teacher had previously responded to. A number of enquiries had been made to try to trace and contact the teacher. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. The panel had regard to the requirement that it was only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending the hearing. The panel had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon were to be called to give evidence and the panel could test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as were favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and if such gaps arose during the course of the hearing, the panel might take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and had accepted that fairness to the teacher was of prime importance. However, it considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by having taken such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as was possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would have caused to the witnesses; that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing. The presenting officer applied to admit an updated Notice of Proceedings and correspondence regarding Mr Bozic’s attendance at the hearing. Those documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be 6 admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer. The panel exercised caution in exercising this discretion given that it had determined to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it was fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that the documents may reasonably be considered to be relevant. The documents outlined the steps which had been taken to inform Mr Bozic of the hearing and included the Notice of Proceedings with the amended address. The panel did not consider these documents to be prejudicial to Mr Bozic in his absence. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – pages 1 to 2 Section 2: Notice of Hearing – pages 3 to 5 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 6 to 9 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 10 to 60 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Notice of Proceedings and correspondence – pages 61 to 72 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing, and had read the additional documents. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the [Redacted] of King’s School (the “School”), called by the presenting officer. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and have reached a decision. 7 The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing, and has read the additional documents prior to commencing the substantive part of the hearing. In May 2017, the School received an application from Mr Bozic for the position of teacher of maths. In the education and academic qualifications section of the application form, Mr Bozic listed his qualifications as including a BA (hons) degree (2:1) [Redacted], awarded in June 2003. The School appointed Mr Bozic to the position in May 2017 and requested certificates of his qualifications. Mr Bozic started at the School in September 2017 and resigned from the position in March 2018. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proven, for these reasons: Whilst applying for employment as a maths teacher at King’s School, Hove you: i. provided false information regarding your degree qualifications in order to obtain a teaching position; The panel noted that in the application form for the teaching position, Mr Bozic had stated that he held a BA (hons) in [Redacted]. The application form was signed and dated by Mr Bozic, declaring that the information he had given in the form was correct and that he understoo