Mr Daniel Stevenson

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 Stevenson

Teacher reference number: 0038170

Teacher's date of birth: 11 December 1968

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 June 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 Stevenson formerly employed in Nottingham, 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 Stevenson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 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 Daniel Stevenson Teacher ref number: 0038170 Teacher date of birth: 11 December 1968 TRA reference: 20376 Date of determination: 25 June 2024 Former employer: Derby Moor Academy, Derby Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 25 June 2024, to consider the case of Mr Daniel Stevenson. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Jayne Bamford (lay panellist) and Miss Victoria Miller (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Rachel Phillips of Blake Morgan LLP. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Stevenson that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Stevenson provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, or Mr Stevenson. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 14 June 2024. It was alleged that Mr Stevenson was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: He had been convicted at any time, of the following relevant offence: 1. On 09 August 2021, he was convicted of intentionally attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification between 15 October 2020 and 31 October 2020, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and Section 15A (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Stevenson admitted the facts of the allegations and that the offence amounted to a conviction for a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, 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 Referral, Response and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 19. Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 20 to 24. Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 126. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Stevenson on 28 May 2024. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Stevenson for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. The panel proceeded to consider the case carefully, having read all of the documents, and reached a decision. It accepted the legal advice provided. Mr Stevenson was previously employed as an English teacher at Derby Moor Academy ("the School"). He commenced employment at the School on 1 September 2016. On 31 October 2020, Mr Stevenson was arrested and interviewed by the police on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with, whom he believed to be, a 14-year- old child between 15 October 2020 and 31 October 2020. On 30 March 2021, he was dismissed from employment with the School. On 12 July 2021, Mr Stevenson was charged with the offence of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child. On 09 August 2021, Mr Stevenson entered a guilty plea, and was convicted at South Derbyshire Magistrates Court. On 13 October 2021, he was sentenced in Derby Crown Court. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted at any time, of the following relevant offences: 1. On 09 August 2021, you were convicted of intentionally attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification between 15 October 2020 and 31 October 2020, contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 and Section 15A (1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The panel was presented with a statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Stevenson, in which this allegation was admitted. 6 The panel was also presented with a certificate of conviction from Derby Crown Court, confirming that Mr Stevenson was convicted, on 09 August 2021, of the offence particularised in allegation 1. Mr Stevenson was sentenced to: a. 8 months imprisonment, suspended for 21 months; b. 30 days of Rehabilitation Activity; c. 240 hours of unpaid work; d. £156 victim surcharge; and e. Ancillary order: forfeiture and destruction of mobile phone seized by the police. The panel was presented with the sentencing remarks of the presiding judge sitting at Court on 13 October 2021, summarising the offence and the reasons for the sentence imposed. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the commission of these offence by Mr Stevenson. In light of this and Mr Stevenson's admission, the panel found the allegation proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Stevenson in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, he 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 • treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position • having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions 7 • showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach… • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. In addition, the panel noted that, pursuant to the Advice it is likely that: • A conviction for any offence that led to a term of imprisonment, including any suspended sentence will be considered “a relevant offence". • A conviction for any offence that relates to, or involves, sexual communication with a child will be considered “a relevant offence”. The panel noted that the allegation took place outside the education setting. However, as the conduct directly related to Mr Stevenson’s sexually motivated communication with a child, the panel was satisfied that Mr Stevenson's conduct still impacted on the way he fulfilled his teaching role. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Stevenson's behaviour in committing this offence would undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. His conduct ran counter to what should be at the very core of the practice of a teacher with a duty of care towards children. Mr Stevenson's behaviour ultimately led to a suspended term of imprisonment, which demonstrated the public and child protection issues raised by his actions together with the other aspects of the sentence imposed. The panel did not consider there to be any relevant mitigating circumstances in relation to the commission of the offence. For all these reasons, the panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was directly relevant to Mr Stevenson's ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for relevant offences 8 as necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the