Mr Dean Collins

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Dean Collins

Teacher reference number: 9541083

Teacher's date of birth: 15 October 1969

Location teacher worked: Solihull, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 23 January to 24 January 2020

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 Dean Collins formerly employed in Solihull, West Midlands.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 23 January to 24 January 2020.

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 Dean Collins: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2020 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 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 Dean Collins Teacher ref number: 9541083 Teacher date of birth: 15 October 1969 TRA reference: 18166 Date of determination: 24 January 2020 Former employer: Eversfield Preparatory School, Solihull Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 23 January to 24 January 2020 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Dean Collins. The panel members were Ms Alison Walsh (teacher panellist), Mr Steve Woodhouse (teacher panellist) and Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist – in the chair). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Luke Berry of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Collins was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 November 2019. It was alleged that Mr Dean Collins was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. Whilst applying for the role of games teacher at Eversfield Preparatory School and / or following your appointment, he provided false and / or misleading information including by: a. stating in his application from that he had achieved a lower second class honours degree from Northumbria University when in fact he had achieved a third class degree; b. providing a document which appeared to demonstrate that he had achieved a lower second class honours degree from Northumbria University. 2. Whilst applying for the role of games teacher at Cadbury College and / or following your appointment, he provided false and / or misleading information including by stating in his application from that he had achieved a lower second class honours degree from Northumbria University when in fact he had achieved a third class degree; 3. His conduct, as may be found proven at 1 and / or 2 above, lacked integrity and / or was dishonest. Mr Collins accepted the underlying facts of allegations 1a and 2 only. The panel therefore proceeded on the basis that he denied the remaining allegations and, therefore, also denied unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Collins. 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; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. 5 The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Collins's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel has given careful consideration to the fact that Mr Collins is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. The panel noted that Mr. Collins had been consistent, in a number of emails to the Presenting Officer's firm and his formal Responses to documents, in his request that this matter be determined without the need for a hearing. Whilst that had not been possible, this stance was indicative of an expectation that he would not be in attendance to put forward his position in person. The panel did, however, also take account of a number of pieces of correspondence that had been sent to Mr. Collins. In particular, there was a Notice of Referral dated 24 December 2019, which the panel noted was generally the first correspondence sent to a teacher when a concern is received by the TRA. This Notice of Referral had been sent to Mr. Collins after the formal Notice of Proceedings and there was some concern that a formal document being received out of its normal sequence may have created some confusion with Mr. Collins as to whether the hearing was proceeding on the arranged dates. On balance, the panel has decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr. Collins for the following reasons: • From the Notice of Proceedings and later correspondence sent by Mr Collins, he was aware of the hearing date • Mr Collins has not sought an adjournment and there is no medical evidence before the panel which indicated that he was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-health. • Whilst the Notice of Referral dated 24 December 2019 had the potential to cause some confusion to Mr Collins, he had not raised any queries regarding the hearing date; • Mr Collins had sent a response to the Notice of Referral and an email of 3 January 2020 to the Presenting Officer's firm, which again asked for the matter to be "…expedited" and "…I have requested no hearing in order to speed up the panel's decision." • The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Collins's absence was voluntary and he had waived his right to attend. 6 • The risk of reaching the wrong conclusion and the disadvantage to Mr Collins in not being present are mitigated by the fact that the TRA's case was fundamentally based on documentary evidence, the content of which Mr Collins accepted; • Mr Collins had provided a written response to the allegations, which, whilst serious, were narrow in nature • There was no indication that Mr Collins might attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. • There is a burden on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel will strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Collins is not present or represented. The panel also heard an application from Mr Berry for a document, not served in accordance with Rule 4.20, to be entered into evidence and its decision is below: "We have considered the application from Mr Berry for the witness statement of Witness A, dated 13 th January 2020, to be entered into evidence despite it not being included with the Notice of Proceedings or served in accordance with Rule 4.20. Mr Berry explained that notice of Witness A giving evidence was given to Mr Collins within the Notice of Proceedings. It had been hoped that this matter would be dealt with by way of a Meeting but, once it became apparent that a Statement of Agreed Facts could not be finalised with Mr Collins, a witness statement was obtained from Witness A. In Mr Berry's submission, the witness statement exhibits the documents already contained within the bundle and provides some context to the circumstances of Mr Collins's application to Eversfield Preparatory School ('Eversfield'). The statement had been served on Mr Collins by email of 14 th January 2020 but no response, either agreeing or objecting, had been received from him. No further contact of any sort had been attempted to obtain an answer from Mr Collins as to whether he agreed, or objected, to the evidence being before the panel. The panel reviewed the statement and also had in mind that Mr Collins accepted the facts of allegation 1a. It was clear that the evidence related to Mr Collins's application to Eversfield and was relevant to the case in hand. However, in respect of fairness, whilst Mr Collins accepted the facts of allegation 1a, there was no similar acceptance in respect of allegation 1b (and the part of allegation 3 7 relating to 1b). There is specific evidence within the statement as to the circumstances of Mr Collins's submission of the degree certificates to Eversfield, which goes directly to the possible dishonest conduct in respect of the same. This was new evidence that Mr Collins had not been given a proper opportunity to answer, and also evidence served after he provided his response to the allegations. The panel accepted that the Notice of Proceedings included a statement of intent for Witness A to give evidence but a teacher must be entitled to know the evidence upon which a case is made. The allegations were, of course, prepared without the benefit of the TRA knowing the content of any evidence from Witness A, and were answered by Mr Collins. The statement in question is short in length and should have been prepared in better time and served when appropriate. In the circumstances, the panel allowed the application to the extent that Witness A's evidence related to allegation 1a. The unfairness to Mr Collins was significantly mitigated by his acceptance of the allegation. However, the panel refuses the application in respect of any evidence from Witness A, written or oral, regardi