Mr David Crawford

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 David Crawford

Teacher reference number: 8839817

Teacher's date of birth: 17 March 1966

Location teacher worked: Stockton-on-Tees, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 December 2024 to 13 December 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 David Crawford formerly employed in Stockton-on-Tees, North 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 David Crawford: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 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 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr David Crawford Teacher ref number: 8839817 Teacher date of birth: 17 March 1966 TRA reference: 20271 Date of determination: 13 December 2024 Former employer: Fishburn Primary School, Stockton-on-Tees Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 11 to 13 December 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr David Crawford. The panel members were Ms Emma Garrett (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Philip Thompson (teacher panellist) and Ms Kristen Hughes (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Daniel Hales of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Adam Slack of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Crawford was not present. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 17 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Crawford was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 9 August 2021 you were convicted of Assault contrary to s.39 criminal justice act 1988 Mr Crawford provided no admission of fact prior to the hearing. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Crawford was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Crawford. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Crawford in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr Crawford’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Crawford had initially sought an adjournment to the hearing on 3 December 2024 until he had consulted his union representative. On being told that this request was refused, and having taken union advice, he confirmed that he no longer sought an adjournment to the hearing, and he did not intend to attend the hearing. The panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Crawford was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Crawford was neither present nor represented. 5 Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents. The additional documents were a series of emails between Mr Crawford and the TRA on 3 and 4 December 2024. In the emails Mr Crawford initially sought a postponement of the hearing. When this was refused, he then confirmed that he had taken advice from his Union representative, he no longer sought a postponement of the hearing, he did not intend to attend the hearing, and that the allegations against him were dishonest. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant and that it would be fair for these to be admitted. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle at pages 168 to 172. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 29 • S ection 3: TRA witness statements – pages 30 to 61 • S ection 4: TRA documents – pages 62 to 167 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • A n email exchange between Mr Crawford and the TRA on 3 and 4 December 2024 – pages 168 to 172 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A, [REDACTED] 6 • Witness B, [REDACTED] • Witness C, [REDACTED] • Witness D, [REDACTED] 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 Crawford was a teacher at Fishburn Primary School (‘the School’) from 3 May 2005 until 18 November 2021. On 4 May 2020, an incident took place between Mr Crawford and Witness A. Witness A reported the incident to Durham County Council HR and the Chair of Governors alleging that Mr Crawford engaged in threatening and intimidating behaviour. On 5 to 11 May 2020, an internal fact-finding process was carried out by the [REDACTED] at the time, Individual E, who spoke to Mr Crawford and Witness A. Individual E also spoke to Witness D, who witnessed the incident. On 1 June 2020, Individual F, was appointed to formally investigate the allegations against Mr Crawford. On 3 June 2020, Witness A reported the incident to the police. On the following day, 4 June 2020, the disciplinary investigation was put on hold pending the outcome of the police investigations and any criminal case. On 9 August 2021, Mr Crawford was convicted of assault contrary to s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. Following the conclusion of the criminal case, the school’s disciplinary process resumed, and a disciplinary hearing was held on 12 November 2021. On 14 January 2022, a referral was made to the TRA by the LADO. 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: 7 1. On or around 9 August 2021 you were convicted of Assault contrary to s.39 criminal justice act 1988 Mr Crawford did not provide any admission of fact or any submissions in respect of the allegation, although he did state in an email on 4 December 2024 that the accusations against him were “dishonest”. The panel was provided with a copy of the memorandum of conviction from County Durham and Darlington Magistrates’ Court which was in the bundle. This confirmed that on 9 August 2021 Mr Crawford had been convicted of the assault of Witness A on 4 May 2020 at the School, contrary to section 39 Criminal Justice Act 1988. The memorandum of conviction further confirmed that Mr Crawford was fined £440; ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £44; and ordered to pay costs of £620 to the Crown Prosecution Service. The panel also heard witness evidence relating to the allegation and the circumstances leading up to the allegation. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness A. Witness A explained that she joined the School as [REDACTED] on 1 September 2019, shortly after the School had been rated as ‘Requires Improvement’ by Ofsted. She described numerous occasions on which she felt Mr Crawford was uncooperative and aggressive, refused to follow her instructions, became angry, called her fat and sought to undermine her by stealing things from her desk, unscrewing the back of her chair so that she fell off her chair when she sat down, touching her clothes, sitting on her lap and holding her leg, putting his arm around her and squeezing her arm. Witness A said that she tried to move away from Mr Crawford when he touched her or put his arms around her, and she tried to avoid being in a room alone with him. The panel heard that there were concerns about Mr Crawford’s teaching. Witness A and the [REDACTED] had agreed to arrange a support plan for him. However, she said before the plan could be implemented, Mr Crawford then commenced a period of sickness absence between September 2019 and January 2020. He then returned to work on a phased return in January 2020. Witness A told the panel that during a meeting on 9 January 2020, while discussing his return to work, Mr Crawford became angry and banged the table with his fist. She said Mr Crawford told her he was best friends with [REDACTED] and that [REDACTED] had not been listening to anything she said. He also said that, because of his relationship with [REDACTED] and the [REDACTED], everyone would listen to him. Witness A said that around this time, the [REDACTED] began a period of absence, and she acted up as [REDACTED] in his absence. 8 Witness A said that on the 4 May 2020, she was working in the School’s main office after taking the register. She stated that she was working on the computer with her back to the office door and Witness D was sat opposite her. Witness A said