Mr Daniel Usher-Clark

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 Usher-Clark

Teacher reference number: 1449908

Teacher's date of birth: 5 September 1977

Location teacher worked: Taunton, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 to 26 April 2024, 11 to 13 September 2024 and 2 October 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 Usher-Clark formerly employed in Taunton, South West 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 Daniel Usher-Clark: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 7 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 35 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 39 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Daniel Usher-Clark Teacher ref number: 0149908 Teacher date of birth: 5 September 1977 TRA reference: 20045 Date of determination: 2 October 2024 Former employer: Bishop Fox’s School, Taunton Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 15 to 26 April 2024, 11 to 13 September 2024 (as private panel deliberation days) and 2 October 2024, by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Daniel Usher-Clark. The panel members were Mr Diarmuid Bunting (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist) and Ms Sarah Daniel (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk in April 2024, and Ms Leah Redden in October 2024, both of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Usher-Clark was present and was represented by Mr Matondo Mukulu, instructed by NASUWT in April 2024, and Mr Matthew Ferris, NASUWT Regional Official, in October 2024. The hearing took place in public and was recorded, save for elements of the evidence which were heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 November 2023 (and subsequently amended, as detailed in the preliminary applications section). It was alleged that Mr Usher-Clark was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Whilst employed as a Teacher in or around 2006, he: a. Engaged in online chat with Pupil A; b. Sought to engage in a video call with Pupil A; c. Messaged Pupil A: i. "still flirtin wiv teachers [?]" ii. "u always seemed naughty! ... dirty / rude / sexy" iii. "am not a teacher now... not yours! ... may be a good thing... we may have flirted 2 much!" iv. "anyways, not your teacher no more!!! ... so, can b naughty! / theoretically / if we wanted too" v. "single and horny now!!!" vi. "hmmmmmmmmm a shower!!! / there's a thought ... bet u look nice in the shower!!!" 2. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Castle School, Taunton, between around 2006 - 2014, he engaged in inappropriate behaviour, a. Towards Pupil B, including in that he: i. Brushed his crotch against Pupil B's hip; ii. Said to Pupil B that he would not report her behaviour to her mother if he could put his hand inside her knickers; iii. Put his hand inside Pupil B's knickers and/or touched Pupil B's vagina; iv. Threatened to Pupil B that he would report his conduct to her mother unless she touched his penis; v. Forced Pupil B to masturbate his penis; 5 vi. Forced Pupil B to perform oral sex; vii. Grabbed Pupil B by the throat; viii. Had sexual intercourse with Pupil B in circumstances where she did not consent. b. Towards Pupil C, including in that he: i. Provided his personal email address to Pupil C; ii. Emailed Pupil C; iii. Asked Pupil C to send inappropriate photographs of herself; iv. Emailed Pupil C that she was "so beautiful can you show me more"; v. Asked Pupil C to help him, alone, move office after school; vi. Kissed Pupil C in his office; vii. Visited Pupil C at her home; viii. Kissed Pupil C at her home; ix. Lay on top of Pupil C in her bedroom; x. Took off Pupil C's trousers and underwear; xi. Placed Pupil C's hand on his penis; xii. Touched Pupil C inside her vagina. 3. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Castle School, Taunton, on or around 6 October 2013, he messaged in a Skype conversation: a. [in response to `ever done anything naughty at school']: "yup / Wannked / Perved / Fuked another teacher / Wanked in my cupboard after class / Looked at girls tits" b. [in response to `So what are you into then?'] "Role playing / Spanking / Uniforms / You'd Def need detention / But hopefully uniform would be right / Hold you down and make you suck sir / All in your school uniform" 4. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Castle School, Taunton, on or around 12 October 2013, he messaged in a Skype conversation: a. "Love younger / But legal only / Teacher role" 6 b. "Yours tits in uniform would be amazing" 5. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Castle School, Taunton, on or around 17 May 2014 he messaged in a Skype conversation: a. "Love you in my class" b. "sir is going to imagine you're in uniform in class as I'm perving at you" 6. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Castle School, Taunton, on or around 17 May 2014, he engaged in a Skype conversation that included the messages: a. "in my short skirt x / Tight blouse" b. "are u single sir? ... even more of a tease if your not / Ha. Put it that way then and I'm not" c. "Can sir see you? ... A pic? That's a naughty little face / Sir likes ... In the mean time sir is going to imagine you're in uniform in class as I'm perving at you ... Soft looking lips... Got a uniform? ... And lityle undies?" 7. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Castle School, Taunton, on or around 27 May 2014, he engaged in a Skype conversation that included the messages: a. "I need extra help with my homework... / You'll have to earn it ... Sent a pic for sir" b. "Sir is just getting in the shower... thinkin of my naughty girl joining me..." 8. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegations 1 - 7 above, was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 9. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Bishop's Fox School, Taunton, he was in possession of around 41 illegal and/or extreme images, including: a. 2 accessible Category A images; b. 1 inaccessible Category A image; c. 20 accessible Category C images d. 6 inaccessible Category C images; e. 6 accessible Category C moving images; f. 6 accessible extreme moving images; 7 10. Whilst employed as a Teacher at the Bishop's Fox School, Taunton, he was in possession of around 672 indicative images of females in school uniforms, including images in which; a. They were showing off their underwear; b. They were marked ‘jailbait'. Preliminary and other applications The panel considered the following applications during the course of the hearing: Application by the teacher for the whole hearing to be held in private Mr Mukulu made an application for the entirety of the hearing to take place in private. The application was premised on concerns that Mr Usher-Clark had on the impact that an open hearing might have [REDACTED]. In support of this submission, Mr Mukulu highlighted that this concern was also shared with Mr Usher-Clark’s [REDACTED], Person A, despite [REDACTED] providing evidence against Mr Usher-Clark to the TRA. Mr Mukulu further submitted that this was an objective and legitimate concern and that to hold the hearing in private was a proportionate measure to address the concerns. Miss Quirk opposed the application. In submissions, she highlighted that the starting point in regulatory proceedings is that they are conducted in public. This was in order that the regulatory process was as transparent as possible, which was in the public interest. Miss Quirk submitted that the application appears to do little other than delay what will be a public pronouncement of the findings that will take place later in this hearing, regardless of outcome of this application. Furthermore, Miss Quirk highlighted that the current observers at the hearing [REDACTED]. In considering the application, the panel accepted the advice of the panel’s independent legal adviser. Firstly, the panel considered that there was a legitimate and objective foundation for seeking privacy, in that it sought to protect third parties who were not part of these proceedings [REDACTED]. However, the panel took into account the guidance from the courts which urged caution from moving from the starting point of open proceedings in these circumstances and which should only be done so in exceptional circumstances. In considering the application, the panel was of the view that the application before it could be put no higher than a general concern for [REDACTED]. There was no specific evidence before the panel in regard to any material risk of harm that might occur unless the hearing took place in private. Accordingly, the panel considered that the application did not surpass the high threshold required and the application was refused. 8 Additional documents At various points during the course of the proceedings, each party sought to adduce further documents before the panel. On each of these occasions, the responding party to the application did not oppose to the material being introduced and the panel was satisfied that it would be relevant and fair to admit them. These included: ▪ A screenshot of a WhatsApp message from Person A to him in relation to [REDACTED] (as part of Mr Usher-Clark’s application for the hearing to be held in private); ▪ A combined architectural plan of the ground floor of The Castle School provided by the TRA based on separate plans already contained within the bundle; ▪ A statement of agreed facts as to the closure dates of the ‘orange.net’ and ‘o2.co.uk’ email servers. Parts of the evidence heard in private During the course of the proceedings, the panel of its own volition, used its powers under paragraph 5.85(iii) (of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020) to hear