Mr Darryl Roberts

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 Darryl Roberts

Location teacher worked: King’s Lynn, East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 20 January 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Darryl Roberts formerly employed in King’s Lynn, 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 Darryl Roberts: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Darryl Roberts TRA reference: 22776 Date of determination: 20 January 2025 Former employer: King's Lynn Academy, Gaywood, King's Lynn Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 20 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Darryl Roberts. The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Wendy Shannon (lay panellist) and Mrs Joanne Arscott (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Darryl Roberts was not present and was not represented. The hearing was recorded and took place in public, save that any oral evidence or submission concerning Mr Roberts’ health and personal circumstances was heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Notice Of Proceedings dated 1 October 2024. It was alleged that Mr Darryl Roberts was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: Whilst working as a Maths teacher at King’s Lynn Academy (“the School”): 1. On or around 29 June 2023, he made inappropriate contact and/or used excessive physical force on Pupil A in that he pulled and/or dragged Pupil A by their hood. 2. His conduct at paragraph 1 was contrary to Child Protection and/or Safeguarding guidance. In his response form, Mr Roberts admitted the factual allegations, but did not admit unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications As to whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Roberts Mr Roberts was not present and not represented. After hearing submissions from the Presenting Officer and receiving legal advice, the panel determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Roberts for the following reasons: • The Notice of Hearing was sent to Mr Roberts on 1 October 2024. Mr Roberts confirmed by email dated 9 October 2024 that he had received the Notice of Hearing sent to him by email. • The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to Mr Roberts in accordance with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020. • In his response to the Notice of Hearing Mr Roberts answered ‘no’ to the question, ‘Do you intend to be present at the hearing?’. • Although Mr Roberts had indicated that he was now residing in South Africa, it was clear from the email correspondence with him that he was aware of the opportunity to participate in the hearing by virtual means. 5 • The panel was satisfied that Mr Roberts had voluntarily waived his right to participate in the hearing. • There was no application by or on behalf of Mr Roberts for an adjournment and there was no indication that Mr Roberts would attend the hearing at a later date if the hearing were to be adjourned. Accordingly, the panel was not satisfied that any purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There was also a public interest in regulatory proceedings concluding reasonably promptly. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and response – pages 8 to 15 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 16 to 24 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 323 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 324 to 333 In addition, the panel received the following: • Proceeding in absence bundle – pages 1 to 22 • Response form – pages 1 to 3. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of these documents in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A and Witness B. 6 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 Darryl Roberts was employed at Kings Lynn Academy (“the School”) as a Teacher of Mathematics between 21 January 2020 and 28 August 2023. He was responsible for planning and delivering lessons to Key Stage 3 and 4 pupils. It was alleged that, on 29 June 2023, Mr Roberts was teaching a class of Year 7 pupils. Pupil A was not a pupil in Mr Roberts’ class. However, during the lesson, Pupil A entered the classroom through a back door without Mr Roberts’ knowledge or permission. He then hid underneath a desk at the back of the classroom and whistled to disrupt the lesson. It was alleged that, when Mr Roberts became aware of Pupil A’s presence, he took hold of the hood of Pupil A’s coat and dragged him out of the classroom. After the lesson had finished, some Year 7 pupils from the class informed Witness B, [REDACTED], of what they had seen. Witness B then spoke to Pupil A, before reporting the incident to Witness A, [REDACTED]. Witness B was instructed to carry out an initial fact-finding exercise. This included asking Pupils A, B and C and Mr Roberts to complete written statements. Their statements were then passed to Witness A. On 30 June 2023, Witness A was instructed by the Principal to conduct a formal investigation, and Mr Roberts was suspended. A disciplinary hearing was held on 1 August 2023. Mr Roberts was subsequently reported to the TRA. Mr Roberts stated in his response to the Notice of Hearing that he admitted the allegations. However, there was no statement of agreed facts and it was clear from Mr Roberts’ earlier responses that there were certain parts of the accounts of Pupil A that he disagreed with. The alternative wording within allegation 1 also made it necessary for the panel to make findings of fact despite Mr Roberts’ admissions. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that you are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: Whilst working as a Maths teacher at King’s Lynn Academy (“the School”): 7 1. On or around 29 June 2023, you made inappropriate contact and/or used excessive physical force on Pupil A in that you pulled and/or dragged Pupil A by their hood. Mr Roberts made a statement on the day of the incident in which he said that Pupil A had come into his classroom on several occasions, entering without permission and loudly disrupting the lesson. He had contacted Pupil A’s [REDACTED] to inform her of this unacceptable behaviour. He said that on the morning of 29 June 2023, Pupil A threw open the door to the classroom and demanded to know why [REDACTED] had been contacted. Mr Roberts said that he told Pupil A that it was because of his constant interruptions, and he asked Pupil A to leave. Pupil A then walked through the classroom and left via the door at the back of the classroom. Mr Roberts said that, without his knowledge, Pupil A subsequently entered the classroom again through the back door and hid underneath a desk at the back of the classroom. Mr Roberts said that he discovered that Pupil A was there after he started whistling. Mr Roberts said, ‘When told to come out he ignored me, so I took the hood of his coat and dragged him out the classroom. In the process, his water pistol fell out his coat so I confiscated it. He then threw the back door open again and shouted at me that I am not allowed to drag him by his coat and that he wanted his water pistol back. When I refused to give back the water pistol, he ripped the poster off my door and took one of the chairs from my classroom and swore at me.’ In a statement made on the day of the incident, Pupil A said that he had hidden in Mr Roberts’ class under a table and was whistling. He said that Mr Roberts had, ‘hit me with a chair (I don’t know if he did this on purpose) and then he grabbed the back of my coat and dragging me across the classroom. Nearly strangling me’. Pupil A was interviewed again the day after the incident. In his second statement, he said that Mr Roberts, ‘made me feel really shaky and nearly cry because he grabbed me hard and he chucked me out the door. But I held my cry in because people would have taken the mick out of me’. Two other pupils who were in the classroom at the time of the incident also provided statements. Pupil B said that Pupil A was ‘dragged on the floor by his coat by sir’. He then referred to a phone call that Mr Roberts then made in the classroom. He said, ‘Sir then called [Pupil A’s] [REDACTED] complaining about how he’s saying he’s shaking with anger’. Pupil C said in his statement that Mr Roberts saw Pupil A, ‘and dragged him by his hood on the floor out of the classroom.’ Mr Roberts attended an investigatory meeting on 12 July 2023. During this meeting, Mr Roberts acknowledged that he was aware of the School’s protocols, but did not know if he had followed them in this instance as Pupil A was not a pupil in his class and it was not a normal