Mr Daniel Watkins

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 Watkins

Teacher reference number: 9562930

Teacher's date of birth: 12 January 1973

Location teacher worked: Surrey, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 October 2023

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 Watkins, formerly employed in Surrey, South East 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 Watkins: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegation 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 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 Teacher: Mr Daniel Watkins Teacher ref number: 9562930 Teacher date of birth: 12 January 1973 TRA reference: 19839 Date of determination: 30 October 2023 Former employer: Hinchley Wood Learning Partnership Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 30 October 2023, via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Daniel Watkins. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist), Ms Christine McLintock (teacher panellist – in the chair) and Ms Penny Griffith (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks 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 Watkins that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Watkins provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Watkins or his representative. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 Allegation The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 17 August 2023. It was alleged that Mr Daniel Watkins was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and / or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Between March 2018 and April 2020, he failed to disclose to Hinchley Wood Learning Partnership (“the School”), that he was the subject of a police investigation by North Yorkshire Police (“the Police Investigation”); 2. On or around 16 September 2020 he provided Individual A [REDACTED] with an inaccurate explanation of the reason for the Police Investigation in March 2018; 3. On or around 17 September 2020 he told Individual A [REDACTED] that the Police Investigation had been closed in April 2018 and that he had received a ‘notification of no further action’ at or around that time, when this was not true; 4. His conduct described in Paragraphs 1 to 3 above was dishonest; 5. By his conduct at Paragraph 1 and 2 above, he prevented the School from carrying out proper safeguarding checks in relation to his employment history, contrary to statutory guidance. 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 anonymised pupil list – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and Notice of Hearing – pages 6 to 31 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Representations – pages 32 to 37 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements and documents – pages 38 to 262 5 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 Watkins on 30 April 2023. 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 Watkins 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. Mr Watkins was employed by Grammar School Leeds ('GSL') until he submitted his resignation in December 2017, with a term’s notice. Shortly after this, Mr Watkins successfully applied to Hinchley Wood Learning Partnership ('the School') for a teaching position and was offered a role on 24 January 2018 (to commence in April 2018). On 5 March 2018, prior to Mr Watkins commencing his employment at the School, he was arrested by police for suspicion of [REDACTED]. Subsequently, Mr Watkins commenced his role at the School in April 2018 but did not disclose his arrest. The police investigation was subsequently closed in April 2020, with no further action being taken against Mr Watkins. In June 2020, concerns were raised with the School in respect of the reasons for Mr Watkins leaving GSL, and that he had been 'moonlighting' in a different role whilst employed by GSL. The School's [REDACTED] raised the issue with Mr Watkins, who informed him that GSL had allowed him some time off to support his partner. No mention was made of the police investigation. As a result of the concerns, the School held further discussions with Mr Watkins on 16 September 2020. During this discussion, Mr Watkins stated that there had been a police investigation, but stated it was related to him having alcohol in his possession at GSL. When this comment was queried by the School to GSL, GSL clarified that the police investigation related to a possible [REDACTED]. 6 Mr Watkins was questioned by the School regarding his arrest on suspicion of [REDACTED]. He explained that the police investigation had concluded, with no further action, in April 2018. The police were contacted by the relevant LADO and confirmed that their investigation was actually closed in April 2020. The School dismissed Mr Watkins in November 2020. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between March 2018 and April 2020, you failed to disclose to Hinchley Wood Learning Partnership (“the School”), that you were the subject of a police investigation by North Yorkshire Police (“the Police Investigation”). 2. On or around 16 September 2020 you provided the School with an inaccurate explanation of the reason for the Police Investigation in March 2018. 3. On or around 17 September 2020 you told the School that the Police Investigation had been closed in April 2018 and that you had received a ‘notification of no further action’ at or around that time, when this was not true. The panel had before it the Statement of Agreed Facts, signed by both parties ('the Statement'). Within this Statement, Mr Watkins unequivocally admitted the facts of 1, 2 and 3. In the light of this admission, which was clear and not contradicted by other evidence within the material before the panel, these three particulars were found proved. 4. Your conduct described in Paragraphs 1 to 3 above was dishonest. Within the Statement, Mr Watkins admitted that: • At the material time, he was aware that he needed to disclose the Police Investigation to the School but did not do so (particular 1); • He had given the School an incorrect explanation as to why there was police involvement (particular 2); and 7 • When he stated in September 2020 that the police investigation had been closed in April 2018, he was aware that was not the correct position, and that the investigation was not concluded until two years later in April 2020 (particular 3). In all of the circumstances, the panel was clear on Mr Watkins' genuine knowledge of the relevant facts, and it was clear on each particular, that he had been dishonest. The panel therefore found particular 4 proved. 5. By your conduct at Paragraph 1 and 2 above, you prevented the School from carrying out proper safeguarding checks in relation to your employment history, contrary to statutory guidance. The panel was content, by virtue of the accepted facts in the Statement, had the School been aware of the actual situation, it would have undertaken additional safeguarding checks, as per Keeping Children Safe in Education. Whilst the panel considered that others could have made the same disclosures that Mr Watkins should have, he was clearly in a position to take the necessary steps but did not do so. In the circumstances, the panel also found this particular proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 Watkins in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Watkins 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; 8 ▪ Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Wat