Mr David McCafferty

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 McCafferty

Teacher reference number: 0609436

Teacher's date of birth: 5 November 1980

Location teacher worked: Gateshead, north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 7 to 8 February 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 David McCafferty, formerly employed in Gateshead, 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 McCafferty: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 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 and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr David McCafferty Teacher ref number: 0609436 Teacher date of birth: 5 November 1980 TRA reference: 18486 Date of determination: 8 February 2023 Former employer: Hill Top School, Gateshead Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 7 to 8 February 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr David McCafferty. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Charlotte McCallum (lay panellist) and Mrs Victoria Jackson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Natalie Kent of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael O’Donohoe of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr McCafferty was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 25 November 2022. It was alleged that Mr McCafferty was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 19 September 2019, he was convicted of the offence of battery for which he received a Community Order with unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement. Costs were ordered in the sum of £500 and a victim surcharge of £85. Mr McCafferty admitted allegation 1, as set out in the response to the notice of proceedings dated 15 December 2022, and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr McCafferty on 18 January 2023. Mr McCafferty further admitted that those admitted facts amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr McCafferty was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of McCafferty. 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 McCafferty in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’). Noting the response to the Notice of Hearing dated 15 December 2022, the panel concluded that Mr McCafferty’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr McCafferty had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and 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 McCafferty was unfit to attend the hearing. Whilst the panel was aware that Mr McCafferty had referred his case to the Criminal Case Review Commission, there was no date set for determination and the panel did not consider that it was in the public interest to adjourn the hearing pending resolution of that matter. 5 The panel therefore considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. 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 t hat Mr McCafferty was neither present nor represented. The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 8 to 25 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 27 to 254 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 257 to 284 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses No witnesses were called to provide oral evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 6 Mr McCafferty was employed as a teacher at the autism centre at Hill Top School (‘the School’) until he was dismissed on 29 November 2019. On 31 October 2018, Mr McCafferty was accused of assaulting Pupil A. On 6 November 2018, Mr McCafferty was suspended from his role at the School. Mr McCafferty was on trial from 18 to 19 September 2019 and was convicted of assault by beating. He appealed against the conviction and the date of his appeal was 26 November 2020. However the appeal was not successful in overturning the conviction. 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. On or around 19 September 2019, you were convicted of the offence of battery for which you received a Community Order with unpaid work and a rehabilitation activity requirement. Costs were ordered in the sum of £500 and a victim surcharge of £85. The panel noted that within the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr McCafferty on 18 January 2023, Mr McCafferty admitted the facts of allegation 1. Notwithstanding, the panel made a decision based upon the evidence before it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case, although it was noted that Mr McCafferty has made an application to the Criminal Cases Review Commission for a review of his case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction dated 5 April 2022 from North Northumbria Magistrates Court, which detailed that Mr McCafferty had on 19 September 2019 been convicted of one count of assault by beating. Mr McCafferty admitted that on Wednesday 6 February 2019, he attended Gateshead police station voluntarily where he was interviewed under caution by the police in respect of allegations that he assaulted Pupil A. Mr McCafferty admitted that on 19 September 2019, he was found guilty at Newcastle- upon-Tyne Magistrates Court of one count of having assaulted Pupil A by beating him on 31 October 2018. Mr McCafferty further admitted that he was sentenced to the following: 7 a) to participate in any activity as required by the responsible officer up to a maximum of 12 days; b) to carry out unpaid work for 240 hours within 12 months; c) victim surcharge of £85; and d) prosecution costs of £500 to the crown prosecution service. Mr McCafferty admitted that although he appealed his conviction to the Crown Court, his appeal was unsuccessful. Mr McCafferty’s sentence was varied by the Crown Court as follows: a) a 2 year community order with a requirement to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement for up to 40 days; b) unpaid work requirement removed; and c) Mr McCafferty to pay the victim surcharge and prosecution costs at a rate of £5 per week. Mr McCafferty also admitted that by conviction of the offence set out above, he has been convicted of a relevant criminal offence. Having considered the certificate of conviction as well as Mr McCafferty’s admissions, the panel accordingly found allegation 1 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 McCafferty, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr McCafferty 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being