Mr Daniel Smith

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 Smith

Teacher reference number: 2046411

Teacher's date of birth: 26 May 1993

Location teacher worked: Lutterworth, South Leicestershire

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 Daniel Smith, formerly employed in Lutterworth, South Leicestershire

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.

Daniel Smith: 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 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 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 Daniel Smith Teacher ref number: 2046411 Teacher date of birth: 26 May 1993 TRA reference: 20767 Date of determination: 15 November 2024 Former employer: Lutterworth College Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 15 November 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Smith. The panel members were Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist – in the chair), Dr Louise Wallace (lay panellist) and Mrs Kate Hurley (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Cher Lyne Peh of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Smith 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 Hearing dated 20 August 2024. It was alleged that Mr Smith was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 29 March 2023, you were convicted at Leicester Magistrates' Court for the offence of Possessing Extreme Pornographic Images. 2. On or around 29 March 2023, you were convicted at Leicester Magistrates' Court for the offence of Making Indecent Photographs of Children. Mr Smith did not respond to the allegations. Preliminary applications Proceed in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Smith. The panel carefully considered all relevant documentation and the submissions by the Presenting Officer. It accepted the legal advice provided. Firstly, the panel was satisfied that the Notice had been served in accordance with the Rules. Whilst the initial Notice had been returned undelivered, the TRA made efforts to trace the address of Mr Smith. The panel saw evidence that the TRA then contacted Mr Smith at his correct address, which was confirmed by Mr Smith himself. The panel was also satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to bring the hearing to Mr Smith’s attention. The panel went on to consider whether the hearing should proceed in Mr Smith’s absence. Mr Smith had not responded directly to the Notice. The panel was satisfied that Mr Smith had voluntarily waived his right to attend the hearing. He had given no reason for his non-attendance and had not sought an adjournment. There was no indication that Mr Smith might attend at a later date. The panel also considered that there is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. 5 The panel did not consider that it would reach the wrong conclusion as a result of not being able to hear from Mr Smith, in the specific facts of this case. In the light of these factors, the panel determined that it should proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Smith. The panel will take great care and have close regard to the overall fairness of these proceedings, bearing in mind that Mr Smith is neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of hearing and response – pages 4 to 14 Section 2 : TRA documents – pages 28 to 88 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. The panel was also provided with documents in regards to the application in Mr Smith’s absence. These comprised of a one page letter, dated 3 October 2024 and a one page email dated 23 October 2024, which confirmed Mr Smith’s correct address was on file. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2024, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Smith had been employed at Lutterworth College (“the School”) since 23 August 2021 as a teacher of computer science. On 25 April 2022, Mr Smith was arrested on suspicion of possession of indecent images of children. 6 Mr Smith was convicted and sentenced on 29 March 2023 in relation to the two offences as set out in the allegation. Mr Smith was sentenced to a two year community order, 100 hours unpaid work, 40 days rehabilitation activity and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years. Mr Smith was subsequently referred to the TRA. 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: 1. On or around 29 March 2023, you were convicted at Leicester Magistrates' Court for the offence of Possessing Extreme Pornographic Images. The panel was provided with a copy of the Certificate of Conviction which showed that Mr Smith was convicted of an offence of possessing extreme pornographic images. In addition, the panel was provided with a printout from the Police National Computer (“PNC”) and the police report, which set out the circumstances pertaining to the offence. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as proof of the commission of the offences. Therefore, allegation 1 was found proved. 2. On or around 29 March 2023, you were convicted at Leicester Magistrates' Court for the offence of Making Indecent Photographs of Children. The panel was provided with a copy of the Certificate of Conviction which showed that Mr Smith was convicted of an offence of making indecent photographs of children. In addition, the panel was provided with a printout from the Police National Computer (“PNC”) and the police report, which set out the circumstances pertaining to the offence. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as proof of the commission of the offences. Therefore, allegation 2 was found proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to convictions of relevant offences. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. 7 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Smith, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Smith 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 having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Smith’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The evidence provided to the panel indicated that Mr Smith had downloaded indecent images whilst he was on School premises. The panel considered there was a risk of children being able to access those images in the School. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils and members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Smith’s behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Smith’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The panel also had sight of the sentencing remarks from the Judge, which indicated that full credit was given for the early guilty plea. This was a case concerning offences involving ‘sexual activity’ and ‘any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or pseudo photograph or image of a child’, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel noted that the list as set out in the Advice is not exhaustive. The panel was satisfied that both possessing extreme pornographic images and making indecent photographs of children amounted to a relevant offence. The panel took into account relevant mitigating factors that had been set out in the documents provided, although the panel was mindful that it had not heard or received any direct evidence relating to this information. In particular, the panel took into 8 consideration Mr Smith’s account of the difficulties he described that he was experiencing at the relevant time, which included a new job, [REDACTED] and new house. The panel was not provided with any evidence regarding Mr Smith’s abilities as an educator. Although,