Mr Deane Anderton

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 Deane Anderton

Teacher reference number: 20722

Teacher's date of birth: 04 March 1992

Location teacher worked: Norwich

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 June 2024 to 13 June 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

Deane Anderton formerly employed in Norwich.

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 Deane Anderton Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 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 Deane Anderton Teacher ref number: 1338127 Teacher date of birth: 4 March 1992 TRA reference: 20722 Date of determination: 13 June 2024 Former employer: Wymondham College, Norwich Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 to 13 June 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Deane Anderton. The panel members were Mrs Maxine Cole (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bev Williams (teacher/ panellist) and Mr Dara Islam (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jermel Anderson of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Anderton was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of Lawyers for Teachers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 26 March 2024. It was alleged that Mr Deane Anderton was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that he: 1) On or around 9/10 October 2021, he: a) Touched Witness C’s chest and/or breast(s); b) Held Witness C down in bed and/or held Witness C by her wrists; c) Kissed Witness C; d) Inserted his finger(s) in Witness C’s mouth; e) Digitally penetrated Witness C’s vagina; f) Digitally penetrated Witness C’s anus; g) Forced Witness C to touch his penis; h) Forced Witness C to touch and/or penetrate his anus; i) Attempted to put his hand under Witness D’s top; j) Attempted to put his hand underneath Witness D’s jeans and/or undo Witness D’s jeans 2) By reason of his conduct on 9/10 October 2021, he caused bruising and/or scratches to Witness C. 3) His conduct as outlined in allegations 1a and/or 1b and/or 1c and/or 1d and/or 1e and/or 1f and/or 1g and/or 1h and/or 1i and/or 1j above was: a) Done without consent; b) Sexually motivated. Mr Anderton denied the allegations. 5 Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. The panel were mindful that there was a prior Case Management Hearing on 10 May 2024 where the following direction was made: a) Witness C is permitted to give evidence virtually, additionally, she will be able to give her evidence through a screening arrangement whereby she will not be able to see Mr Anderton and he will not be able to see her. b) Cross-examination must be conducted by Mr Anderton’s representative in respect of Witness C and Witness D. Mr Anderton is not to cross-examine either witness directly. The panel therefore made sure that the directions were complied with. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised list of key people – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 20 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 21 to 49 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 50 to 372 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 373 to 378 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 the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: • Witness A • Witness B • Witness C 6 • Witness D Mr Anderton also gave live evidence before the panel. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Introduction Mr Anderton was employed by the School as a PE Teacher on 1 January 2017. The School is a state comprehensive boarding school. On 9 October 2021, Mr Anderton was out socialising with Witness B. Towards the end of the evening, the pair met with a group including Witness C and Witness D. The group took a taxi to Mr Anderton’s home, save for one colleague who exited the vehicle at the School. The rest of the group then went to Mr Anderton’s home where they all stayed the night. Witness C and Witness D spoke with each other on 10 October 2021, and both shared that an incident had taken place the night before. Witness C reported her concerns to the School on 13 October 2021. The school’s subsequent disciplinary process concluded on 25 March 2022, following by a LADO meeting on 28 March 2022. The case was subsequently referred to the TRA on 06 April 2022. Evidence The panel had careful regard to the oral and documentary evidence presented and the parties' submissions. It accepted the legal advice provided. The panel heard oral evidence from witnesses as above. In addition, the panel was presented with hearsay evidence from individuals who provided some contextual evidence in relation to the underlying events. The panel was satisfied that the admission of such evidence did not give rise to any unfairness in the specific circumstances of this case. 7 Nonetheless, the hearsay evidence presented was considered with appropriate caution and if and where it was relied upon, this is addressed in the panel's reasons, below. The panel also received documentary evidence pertaining to the investigation relating to the allegations, it was sure to treat this material with due caution and only engage with it only insofar as it was directly relevant to the case. In considering the allegations, the panel formed its own, independent view based on the evidence presented to it. It was mindful of the need to exercise its own independent judgement and not rely upon any opinions recorded. It was for the panel, not anyone else, to draw inferences and conclusions from proven facts in this case. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1) On or around 9/10 October 2021, you: a) Touched Witness C’s chest and/or breast(s); b) Held Witness C down in bed and/or held Witness C by her wrists; c) Kissed Witness C; d) Inserted your finger(s) in Witness C’s mouth; e) Digitally penetrated Witness C’s vagina; f) Digitally penetrated Witness C’s anus; g) Forced Witness C to touch your penis; h) Forced Witness C to touch and/or penetrate your anus; i) Attempted to put your hand under Witness D’s top; j) Attempted to put your hand underneath Witness D’s jeans and/or undo Witness D’s jeans The panel heard live evidence from Witness C, Witness D and Mr Anderton in relation to this allegation. Witness A, the investigating officer also provided oral evidence which derived from her investigation. It was apparent that there was a disagreement with regard to whether there was consent with regard to the activity as it pertained to Witness C, with Mr Anderton maintaining that any activity that took place was consensual, and Witness C 8 disputing this. The accounts with relation to Allegation 1i) and 1j) were in dispute insofar as Mr Anderton denied that they occurred at all, whilst Witness D maintained that they did. The panel was cognisant of the fact that the particulars of this allegation were agreed to some extent. The panel first determined that it was satisfied with the stem of the Allegation as, having no evidence to the contrary, it felt that it could appropriately record that the Allegations pertained to a situation on or around October 9 - October 10 2021. The panel then went on to consider each particular of the Allegation in turn. The panel was satisfied that in relation to Allegation 1a), Mr Anderton made a clear admission to this during both his written and oral evidence. The admission was also supported by the corroborating evidence from Witness C. It therefore was satisfied that it could find Allegation 1a) proved. In relation to Allegation 1b), the panel heard directly from Witness C who during live evidence stated that she was held down by her wrists by Mr Anderton. It was noted by the panel that Witness C had, through her evidence, given accounts of one or more occasions where she was held by the wrist and the panel viewed this as consistent with the account that she had given elsewhere. The account that Witness C provided to the School, in addition to the School’s investigation and the comments that she made to her colleagues following the events, all made direct reference to her being grabbed by the wrist by Mr Anderton. Furthermore, Witness D corroborated this account through her evidence and made direct reference to Witness C telling her that she had been grabbed by the wrist and had shown her bruising to this area. Witness D’s signed account within the School’s investigative report dated 2 January 2022 stated that she “observed bruising on Witness C’s breasts and wrist”. The panel felt that Witness C was credible in relation to this Allegation and therefore, on balance of probabilities found Allegation 1b) proved. The panel formed the view that Mr Anderton had made an admission to Allegation 1c), albeit on a qualified basis, whereby he asserted that both parties kissed each other. The panel was therefore careful to consider the degree to which it could consider this a full admission. However, given the wording of the Allegation, it was satisfied that the act of