Mr Daniel Hammond

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 Daniel Hammond

Teacher reference number: 1255144

Teacher's date of birth: 24 January 1983

Location teacher worked: Lincoln, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 to 9 August 2023, 31 August 2023, and 13 August 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 Daniel Hammond formerly employed in Lincoln, 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 Daniel Hammond: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 11 Documents 11 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 22 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Daniel Hammond Teacher ref number: 1255144 Teacher date of birth: 24 January 1983 TRA reference: 0018720 Date of determination: 13 August 2024 Former employer: St Francis Hill Primary School (“the School”), Lincolnshire County Council Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 8 and 9 August 2023 by virtual means to consider the case of Mr Daniel Hammond. The hearing was adjourned and reconvened on 31 August 2023. The hearing was adjourned again and reconvened on 13 August 2024. The panel members were Mrs Shabana Robertson (chair - lay panellist), Dr Lee Longden (former teacher panellist), and Mr Chris Major (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ciju Puthupally (Counsel) of 3 Raymond Buildings instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Hammond was not present and was not represented throughout each hearing day. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 22 May 2023. It was alleged that Mr Hammond was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or was convicted of a relevant offence in that, whilst a teacher at Sir Francis Hill Primary School: 1. On 12 March 2021 he was convicted of engaging in sexual communication with Child 1 between 1 May 2019 and 30 June 2019, contrary to section 15A(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; 2. He behaved in an unsolicited and inappropriate manner towards Individual A in that: (a) On 19 October 2018 he touched Individual A’s bottom without her consent; (b) In or around November 2018, he sent a message to Individual A, via Snapchat and said ‘let’s meet up and spoon/cuddle’, or words to that effect; 3. In or around May 2019 he sent unwanted and inappropriate messages to Individual D, via Facebook messenger and said: (a) ‘lil but [sic] of a Facebook stalk’; (b) ‘sounds a bit creepy’; (c) ‘Random question but are you single?’ 4. Between 25 May and 24 June 2019, he sent unwanted and inappropriate messages to Individual F saying: (a) ‘… you can get your boobs out and hurt yourself as long as it isn’t at the same time? Xxxx’; (b) ‘Ok, I promise I will try to keep my clothes on xxx’; (c) ‘you have nice legs and boobs’; (d) ‘actually had a weird dream about you the other night’; (e) ‘we didn’t go that far, heavy flirting/petting’. 5. On 22 June 2019, he sent unsolicited and inappropriate messages to Individual H via social media and said: (a) ‘Heard you were a good night out…’; (b) ‘hope you are enjoying the night around me’; (c) ‘Still have me to corrupt you though’; (d) ‘Can stay at mine…’. 6. His conduct set out in once or more of the allegations above at 1 to 5 was sexually motivated; 5 7. By his conduct in the paragraphs 1-5: (a) Failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position; 8. By his conduct in the paragraphs 4 and 5: (a) He continued to make unsolicited and inappropriate contact with his colleagues despite being given professional advice on 11 June 2019 that all conversations with staff should be kept professional and/or work related at all times. By a notice of referral form completed, signed and dated by Mr Hammond on 18 November 2022, Mr Hammond has, with the exception of allegations 2(a) and 6, agreed the facts from which the allegations are based and has admitted that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute and/or being convicted of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications Decision on Excluding the Public The panel, of its own volition, considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018 (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(a) of the Regulations and the first and third bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from part of the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that it was reasonable to hear part of the hearing in private given concerns about confidential matters relating to the identity of Child 1 being placed in the public domain. The panel considered whether there were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of Child 1’s identity. The panel considered that it was only necessary to exclude the public in so far as discussions relevant to the context of the anonymised individuals set out in the allegations. The hearing bundle presented before the panel contained inconsistent anonymisation and no key or other indicators were provided to the panel. It was therefore necessary for the parties to agree how each individual within the allegations would be referred to during the hearing. 6 The panel also considered whether it would sufficiently protect the interests of third parties to grant anonymity to those third parties without the need to exclude the public from the hearing. The panel was not satisfied that this would be a sufficient step given the reasons mentioned above. The panel had regard to whether holding part of the hearing in private would be contrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or if there has been a conviction of a relevant offence. In the event that the case continues any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. The panel considered that in the circumstances of this case the public interest would be satisfied by these announcements. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. Decision to proceed in absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Hammond. The panel wa s satisfied that the TRA ha d complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 (1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the notice of hearing complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2018 (the “Procedures”). The panel 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 took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones 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 wa s of prime importance but that it also encompassed the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. 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. 7 i) The panel had regard to the nature and circumstances of the teacher absenting himself. On the face of it, this appears to be deliberate. In the teacher’s response to the notice of referral, sent to him in late 2022, he requested that the allegations be considered without a hearing. He also indicated that he would not like to request that the TRA consider ed his case at an in- person hearing. Further, the teacher requested that the TRA communicate with him directly and that email was an acceptable method of communication. The teacher has signed the notice of referral document and has dated it on 18 November 2022. The teacher was sent the n otice of h earing on 22 May 2023, more than 8 weeks prior to this hearing. The presenting officer informed the panel that the TRA had no further correspondence from the teacher since 2022. The teacher’s email address had been used to access the hearing bundle made available to him via an online platform on 26 July 2023 at 18:54. The panel accept s that this email address was previously confirmed by the teacher, to the TRA’s representatives, as being the correct email address for correspondence. On balance therefore, the panel believed that the teacher had been provided with the necessary documents and he had deliberately chosen not to attend