Mr Dean Lee Davidson

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

Teacher's name: Mr Dean Lee Davidson

Teacher reference number: 0261696

Teacher's date of birth: 6 July 1982

Location teacher worked: North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 31 May 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 Dean Lee Davidson, formerly employed in insert town or city, region.

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 Lee Davidson: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education 31 May 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Dean Lee Davidson Teacher ref number: 0261696 Teacher date of birth: 6 July 1982 TRA reference: 19758 Date of determination: 31 May 2023 Former employer: “The School” Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually via Microsoft Teams on 31 May 2023, to consider the case of Mr Dean Lee Davidson. The panel members were Ms Penny Griffith (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist), and Mrs Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Patricia D’Souza of Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Stephen Ferson from 7 Bedford Row Chambers. Mr Davidson 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 hearing dated 17 March 2023, as amended in the course of the hearing. It was alleged that Mr Davidson was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 14 April 2021, he was convicted of: a. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child; b. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child; c. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child; d. Possession of extreme pornographic images of an act of intercourse/oral sex with a dead/alive animal; e. Distributing an indecent photograph of pseudo-photograph of a child; f. Causing/inciting a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration; g. Causing/inciting a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration; h. Engaging in non-penetrative sexual activity with a boy between 13-15 years, where the offender is 18 years or over; i. Engaging in non-penetrative sexual activity with a boy between 13-15 years, where the offender is 18 years or over; j. Engaging in non-penetrative sexual activity with a boy between 13-15 years, where the offender is 18 years or over; k. Engaging in non-penetrative sexual activity with a boy between 13-15 years, where the offender is 18 years or over; l. Causing/inciting a boy 13-15 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, where the offender is 18 years or over; m. Causing/inciting a boy 13-15 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, where the offender is 18 years or over; n. Causing/inciting a boy 13-15 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, where the offender is 18 years or over; 5 o. Causing/inciting a boy 13-15 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, where the offender is 18 years or over; p. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child; q. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child; r. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of a child; These allegations are not admitted by Mr Davidson and there is no response from Mr Davidson as to whether his convictions amount to a relevant offence. This case therefore proceeded as a disputed case. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Davidson. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it. The panel was, first, satisfied that the notice of hearing had been sent in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. The panel also had regard to the additional documents admitted in the course of the hearing which demonstrated the attempts made by the TRA to contact Mr Davidson. The presenting officer submitted that the TRA case papers were sent to Mr Davidson on 28 March 2023. Mr Davidson is currently an inmate at HMP [Redacted] and the TRA had to ensure that the relevant paperwork was received in line with HMP [Redacted]’s procedures. Mr Davidson had the opportunity to respond to the documents he received but no response was received from him. The panel noted the additional documents demonstrated that correspondence was received by Mr Davidson in prison from the TRA in December 2022, March 2023 and May 2023. The panel was also satisfied that the TRA had made reasonable efforts to bring this hearing to his attention given the confirmation delivery in the email from the Performance & Delivery Hub of the prison. The email from the senior prison custody officer confirmed that Mr Davidson was aware of the hearing, that he had the relevant documents and that he did not wish to attend. It was further stated that if Mr Davidson changed his mind his attendance could be facilitated by the prison service. 6 The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Davidson's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 5.45 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 caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mr Davidson was not in attendance and would not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. On balance, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Davidson for the following reasons in particular: • The panel was satisfied that Mr Davidson' absence was voluntary. It was more likely than not that he was aware of this hearing and had waived his right to attend. There was no indication he was unfit to attend. The prison service indicated in an email to the TRA on 18 May 2023 that he could attend if he wished. • There was also no indication that Mr Davidson might attend at a future date. As such, the panel concluded that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time including the interests of any alleged victims of Mr Davidson’s conduct. • There is an obligation on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. • T he risk of reaching the wrong conclusion as a result of not being able to hear from Mr Davidson was limited in this case by the nature of the allegation. It concerned Mr Davidson's conviction of multiple offences, as referred to in the memorandum of conviction. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Davidson is neither present nor represented. Anonymisation of the School's name The presenting officer made an application for the name of any schools that Mr Davidson taught at to be anonymised in the course of the hearing, any hearing transcript and [redacted]. Paragraph 5.87 of the Procedures provides that a panel may, if it considers it to be in the interests of justice or not contrary to the public interest to do so, direct that the name and identity of a school will not be disclosed during the professional conduct panel hearing or at all. 7 The allegation relates to convictions against Mr Davidson which relate to inappropriate conduct towards children, some of whom may have been pupils of the school at which Mr Davidson taught at the time. The presenting officer submitted that the identification of the pupils may be ascertained if the schools were named and there would be no prejudice to the TRA or Mr Davidson if the panel accepted this application. The panel determined that it was in the interests of justice and not contrary to the public interest to not refer to the name and identity of the schools in the hearing [redacted]. The panel therefore made a direction to anonymise the name of the School. Amendment of the allegation The legal advisor advised the panel to consider whether it may be necessary to amend the allegations as the statutory references to the relevant legislation which Mr Davidson is alleged to have breached by his offences, is not correct. The panel noted that paragraph 5.82 of the Procedures indicates that at any stage before making its decision as to whether the facts of the case have been proved the panel may, if it is in the interests of justice to do so, amend an allegation. The presenting officer submitted that it would be appropriate for the allegations to be amended to be in line with the details contained on the certificate of conviction and that all statutory references relating to each offence be removed. The presenting officer stated that the panel does not have the indictment before the criminal court against which to double check the statutory references. The panel concluded that this amendment was appropriate. The panel considered this was simply correcting clerical errors caused by inaccurate information within the police national computer print-out. The panel considered there would be no prejudice, or potential prejudice, to Mr Davidson as a result of the amendments. These changes did not alter the substance of the allegation or result in new factual particulars being alleged or more serious matters being alleged. This was consistent with the public interest in allegations being properly put and that includes