Mr Craig White

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 Craig White

Teacher reference number: 1839684

Teacher's date of birth: 16 November 1996

Location teacher worked: Derbyshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 June 2023

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 White, formerly employed in Derbyshire, 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 Craig White: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 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 Craig White Teacher ref number: 1839684 Teacher date of birth: 16 November 1996 TRA reference: 18699 Date of determination: 12 June 2023 Former employer: Queen Elizabeth’s Grammar School, Derbyshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 June 2023 by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Craig White. The panel members were Ms Rachel Cooper (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Gerida Montague-Munson (teacher panellist), and Mr Ronan Tyrer (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Emma Routledge of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millen of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr White was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 30 March 2023. It was alleged that Mr White was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 19 April 2021, Mr White was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child on 26 August 2019, contrary to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. 2. On or around 19 April 2021, Mr White was convicted of making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978. The convictions of the above offences are admitted by Mr White. Preliminary applications The panel considered the following preliminary applications from the Presenting Officer: 1. To proceed in the absence of Mr White: • The panel was satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012. • 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 panel has taken as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis 2016] EWCA Civ 162. • In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1: o The panel determined that it was plain from the documents available to the panel that Mr White had received the Notice of Proceedings and had knowledge of the date, time and format of the hearing, namely because Mr White has responded to the Notice. The TRA also confirmed to the 5 panel that the TRA had spoken with Mr White on the morning of the hearing, and that Mr White confirmed that he would not attend. o There was no evidence to suggest that an adjournment might result in Mr White attending voluntarily. o Mr White expressed no wish to adjourn to obtain legal representation or otherwise. o The panel has the benefit of representations made by the teacher and is able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel did not identify any gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it. o The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from being a teacher. o The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. o The panel noted that there are no witnesses to be called, and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses is not a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. The panel therefore considered that Mr White has waived his right to be present at the hearing. The panel considered that in light of Mr White’s waiver of his right to appear, that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing in Mr White’s absence. Accordingly, the panel decided to proceed in Mr White’s absence. 2. To amend both allegations against Mr White to remove references to the particular sections of the legislation referred to in the allegations: • The panel considered that the amendment proposed, being a clarification of the legislation pursuant to which the allegations of two relevant convictions were made, does not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. There is no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegation as proposed. 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, 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 proceedings – pages 5 to 8 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 10 to 79 Section 4: Teacher’s response – pages 80 to 82 The Presenting Officer did not object to the Panel accepting a late bundle of documents which included: 1. Email from Mr White enclosing late statement dated 31 May 2023 – page 3 2. Mr White’s late statement – pages 4 to 6 The panel decided that it was fair to admit the documents and that they were relevant in providing Mr White’s response to the allegations. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against Mr White proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 19 April 2021, Mr White was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child on 26 August 2019, contrary to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. 2. On or around 19 April 2021, Mr White was convicted of making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978. The allegations were admitted and were supported by evidence presented to the panel. In particular, the panel has seen the certificate of conviction confirming Mr White’s conviction of the alleged offences. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as 7 conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel noted that Mr White initially received a community sentence to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement for a maximum of 40 days as part of a 24 month community order. He was also required to participate in a sex offender programme for a period of 43 days as part of the 24 month community order. It was also ordered that he may be placed on the barring list by the Disclosure and Barring Service, and he was required to sign the sex offenders register for a period of 5 years. A sexual harm prevention order was put in place for a period of 5 years. Mr White was also ordered to pay £340 towards the cost of prosecution, to pay a victim surcharge of £90 and the forfeiture and destruction of his mobile phones was ordered. The matter came back before the court on 8 August 2022, when Mr White admitted that he had failed to comply with the requirements of the community order and was re- sentenced for his original offences. He therefore received an additional sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment suspended for 2 years. He was required to perform 80 hours of unpaid work and forty rehabilitation activity days and ordered to pay a further £200 in costs. The sexual harm prevention order remained in place. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr White, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr White 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 o not undermining…the rule of law • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within