Mr Curtis Austin

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 Curtis Austin

Teacher reference number: 1280030

Teacher's date of birth: 14 August 1989

Location teacher worked: East London, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 November 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 Curtis Austin of East London, 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 Curtis Austin: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations Teacher: Mr Curtis Austin Teacher ref number: 1280030 Teacher date of birth: 14 August 1989 TRA reference: 20282 Date of determination: 15 November 2024 Former employer: [REDACTED] Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 30 to 31 July 2024, 2 August 2024 (panel determinations only) and 15 November 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Curtis Austin. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist) and Ms Debra Vaughan (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Austin was present and was represented by Mr Stephen Tawiah of 33 Bedford Row. Mr Mark Oley, Union representative was also present. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 18 March 2024, as amended. It was alleged that Mr Curtis Austin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that between July 2019 and February 2020: 1. He was a member of WhatsApp chats alongside one or more of his colleagues in which he: a. Sent and/or received inappropriate messages which discussed his female colleagues in a way which was: i. Sexually objectifying; ii. Homophobic iii. Misogynistic iv. Denigrating b. Sent and/or received inappropriate messages, the contents of which were racist c. Sent and/or received inappropriate messages about Individual A, a parent of a child at the School, in which he stated: i. ‘she is now the top of the cunt list’; ii. ‘I feel so sorry for her husband. Having to put his meat in that cunt. I’d argue it’s worse than prison’ d. Sent and/or received inappropriate messages about his students in which he stated: i. ‘[REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED] is a douche. [REDACTED] is annoying, [REDACTED] a bit wet’; ii. ‘[REDACTED] is a c word haha’; iii. ‘He’s a drip’; iv. ‘does she expect me to stand next to her deformed kid 24-7’ v. ‘if your kids fat, has a shit on her feet, wtf do you expect me to do’ 2. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1(a)(i) above was of a sexual nature.5 Mr Austin admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), and denied allegation 2 in his response to the allegations. This was confirmed by Mr Austin and his representative at the start of the hearing. Mr Austin admitted that, to the extent of the admitted allegations, those amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to amend allegations At the start of the hearing, the panel invited submissions from the parties in respect of the stem of allegation 1. Subsequently, the presenting officer made an application to amend the stem of allegation 1 from: “You were a member of a WhatsApp group chat alongside 3 of your colleagues in which you…” to “You were a member of WhatsApp chats alongside one or more of your colleagues in which you…” Mr Austin’s representative on behalf of Mr Austin did not object to the application. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel considered that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and scope of allegation 1. The proposed amendment sought to clarify the case against Mr Austin, which was understood by the parties as relating to WhatsApp messages sent and received. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendment did not amount to a material change to allegation 1. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. The panel did not consider that granting the application for the proposed amendment would cause unfairness and/or prejudice to Mr Austin on the basis that: Mr Austin had at all material times been aware of the case he had to answer; the proposed amendment did not materially change allegation 1; and Mr Austin had been informed of the proposed amendment and did not object to the same. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are as set out above. 6 Application to admit additional documents as late evidence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents as late evidence. The presenting officer’s documents were the evidence in the form of transcripts of 2 other teachers’ hearings consisting of cross-examination, examination in chief and panel questions from separate regulatory proceedings. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the teacher’s representative in respect of the application and noted that the teacher’s representative objected to this application on the basis of their late admission and that it would not be in the interests of fairness to Mr Austin to admit these documents at this late stage in proceedings. The panel noted that a previous decision had been made at a case management hearing for Mr Austin’s TRA case not to be joined with the TRA cases of 2 other teachers. The panel also considered whether it would be prejudicial to Mr Austin to admit this evidence without the 2 other teachers present at this hearing to be cross-examined on the evidence. The panel considered that the additional documents were not sufficiently relevant and that it would not be in the interests of fairness to proceedings to admit these documents. Application to clarify the legislation relied upon in respect of allegation 2, namely whether the TRA was relying on Section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (“the Act”) An application was made by the teacher’s representative on behalf of Mr Austin seeking clarification from the TRA as to whether it intended to rely upon Section 78 of the Act in respect of allegation 2 and, in particular, the use of the term “sexual nature.” Mr Austin’s representative asked the panel to give consideration to the Act and the associated parliamentary explanatory note as part of deliberations. The panel considered the representations made by Mr Austin’s representative in this regard which was that there should not be duplication of allegations given that sexual nature referred to in respect of allegation 2 would then go beyond the term sexual objectification referred to in allegation 1(a)(i). The teacher’s representative stated that this 7 was a duplication of the allegations because of the use of the two different terms (sexual nature and sexual objectification). The panel considered the representations made on behalf of the TRA which was that it is a matter for the panel to hear the evidence and the legal advice, including any advice on the use of Section 78 of the Act in respect of the allegations, and consider this alongside their professional expertise. The representative on behalf of the TRA stated that this was a matter for the panel’s deliberations when determining the allegations. The panel was referred to the case of Sait v The General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 3160 (Admin) in respect of what may constitute conduct of a sexual nature. The panel considered that it was a matter for them to consider how much weight to attach to the definition of sexual within Section 78 of the Act and the associated parliamentary explanatory note in light of the evidence at the hearing and the evidence and submissions of Mr Austin. The panel also considered that Mr Austin was fully aware of the allegations before him and that there would therefore be no need to provide further clarification in this regard. The panel considered that it was not for it to constrain either party with regard to the submissions it wishes to make. The panel’s view was that it was for the TRA to present its case and Mr Austin would have an opportunity to respond as part of the proceedings. Both parties would be able to address the panel on allegation 2 in closing submissions and the panel would consider both the Act and explanatory note as part of its deliberations. The panel found that there was therefore no need for the TRA to clarify the legislation relied upon in respect of allegation 2 at this stage and that this would be dealt with as part of the normal course of the hearing. Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private During Mr Austin’s cross-examination, the panel considered an application from the teacher’s representative for part of the hearing - [REDACTED] - to be heard in private. The presenting officer did not have