Unknown Teacher

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 reference number:

1866958

Teacher's date of birth:

23 June 1952

Location teacher worked:

Kings Langley, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel:

4 to 20 February 2019

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 Denis John McCarthy, formerly employed in Kings Langley, East of England .

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 4 February 2019

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 Denis McCarthy: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2019 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 6 D. Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 26 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 28 2 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Denis McCarthy Teacher ref number: 1866958 Teacher date of birth: 23 June 1952 TRA reference: 15928 Date of determination: 20 February 2019 Former employer: School X ('the School') A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4th February 2019 to 20th February 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Denis McCarthy. The panel members were Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist) and Mr John Matharu (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Hannah Eales of Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr McCarthy was present and was not represented. Mr McCarthy deliberately absented himself for days 3, 4 and 6 of the hearing. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 3 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 19 October 2018 It was alleged that Mr Denis McCarthy was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a teacher at School X ('the School') between 1 September 1983 and 13 January 2017, he failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries and/or appropriate professional standards when: 1. In relation to Pupil A: a. In or around 2009: i. On one or more occasions he allowed and/or encouraged Pupil A to sit on his lap ii. He "wrote letters" on her back with your finger b. In or around 2010, on one or more occasions he played a game where he chased and/or picked up and/or swung her c. In or around June 2011, allowed Pupil A to sit on his lap at a School Summer fair d. In or around September 2013, at a fund-raising event, he approached her from behind and touched her around the waist area e. In or around December 2013, he permitted her to put his hair in "bunches" f. On an unknown date in 2012 or 2013 he was alone with Pupil A in his classroom and he: i. pushed her against a wall ii. pulled her leggings and underwear down iii. told Pupil A not to tell anyone about what he had done 2. In relation to Pupil B: a. In or around 2010: i. hugged Pupil B; and/or ii. allowed her to sit on his lap b. In or around June 2011, allowed Pupil B to sit on his lap at a School Summer fair c. In or around December 2013, kissed Pupil B on the cheek 4 d. In or around December 2013 during a carol singing event: i. Placed his arm around her ii. Allowed her to lay her head on his chest e. Between 23 and 27 June 2014: i. Stroked her cheek and tucked her hair behind her ear ii. Put his arm around her iii. Held her hand iv. Allowed her to lay her head on his chest and/or shoulder v. Allowed her to lay her head in his lap vi. Placed your arm around her waist and/or shoulder vii. Sat in the entrance of her open tent f. On or around 7 November 2014 lifted her out of his chair in the classroom g. On or around 12 November 2015 and/or 16 December 2015: i. Stroked her shoulder and/or back ii. Placed his arm around her 3. On or around 12 November 2015 he had his arm around Pupil C 4. On or around 22 February 2016 he touched the face of Pupil D 5. In relation to Pupil G: a. In or around 2010: i. hugged Pupil G; and/or ii. allowed her to sit on his lap b. In or around December 2013, allowed Pupil G to massage his head 6. In relation to Pupil H: a. In or around 2010: i. hugged Pupil H; and/or ii. allowed her to sit on his lap b. In or around June 2011, allowed Pupil H to sit on his lap at a School summer fair 5 c. In 2012 you allowed Pupil H to sit on his lap d. In or around December 2013, allowed Pupil H to massage his head 7. His conduct at paragraph 2f, 2g, 3, and 4 was in contravention to the advice given to him in respect of maintaining professional boundaries with pupils on 28 July 2014 8. In or around June or July 2015, he encouraged pupils to use swear/rude words in a religion lesson 9. His actions as described above at paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 and/or 6 were a. inappropriate, and/or b. sexually motivated Whilst Mr McCarthy admitted some of the actions that underlay the allegations, he denied any conduct to be inappropriate or sexually motivated. The panel therefore proceeded on the basis that this was a contested case. C. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the TRA that further documents, not served in compliance with Rule 4.20 be admitted into evidence. These documents were:  Investigation Report into Complaints made against Mr McCarthy regarding Family A (D847 to D870);  Investigation Report into Complaints made against Mr McCarthy regarding Family I (D871 to D890);  Investigation Report into Complaints made against Mr McCarthy regarding Family X (pages D891 to D906);  Independent Investigation Report prepared for the Chair of the Board of Trustees (D907 to D912);  Terms of Reference to the Independent Investigation Report (D913 to D929);  Guidance for Safer Working Practice for those Working with children and young people in education Settings (D930 to D955);  School X's Child Protection Policy (D956 to D977); and 6  Investigation Report into Institutional Allegations (pages D979 to D1057);  Poem in respect of Pupil A (D1058). The panel also considered a similar application from Mr McCarthy in respect of the following documents:  Notes of a Disciplinary Meeting of 11 February 2016 (Defence Bundle D7 to D8);  Progress Monitoring Report (Defence Bundle D9 to D17);  Correspondence to the Chair of Trustees dated 24 November 2016 and the response (Defence Bundle D18 to D21);  Witness Statement of 'NM' dated 9 September 2017 (Defence Bundle D22 to D24);  Complaint emails (Defence Bundle D25 to D27);  Disciplinary Meeting Notes and record (Defence Bundle D28 to D33);  Telegraph Newspaper article (Defence Bundle D34 to D35);  Classroom layout and plan of the School (Defence Bundle D36 to D37);  [Redacted] County Council Child Protection Report for Pupil B (Defence Bundle D38 to D42);  Speech and Language Therapy Summary for Pupil I (Defence Bundle D43 to D45);  Correspondence from Pupil B's mother regarding Mr McCarthy's conduct (Defence Bundle D46 to D47);  Pupil I's Class 3 report (Defence Bundle D48 to D50);  Pupil I's Class 4 report (Defence Bundle D51 to D52);  Notes regarding Pupil I's Class 5 (Defence Bundle D53);  Verse of poetry for Pupil I (Defence Bundle D54 to D55). In the panel's view, all of the above documents appeared relevant to the case that it had before it and a number of the reports, both for the TRA and Mr McCarthy, included accounts that were prepared nearer the time of the events. The documents would therefore assist in the panel in its determination of matters and in the consideration that a number of witnesses could be asked questions on the documents, any prejudice to either party was minimal. 7 D. 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 A2 to A7 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages B2 to B10 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages C2 to C81 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages D2 to D846 The teacher's documents were provided in a separate bundle, itself divided into sections A to C. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the documents as stated above in the section headed 'Preliminary Applications.' The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from:  Pupil A;  Pupil A's mother;  Witness A, previous receptionist at the School;  Witness B, Librarian at the School;  Witness C, previous Designated Safeguarding Lead (‘DSL’);  Witness D, Educational Facilitator;  Witness E, Teaching Assistant;  Witness F, Teacher;  Witness G, previous Trustee of the School;  Witness H, Independent Educational Consultant;  Pupil I's mother; and 8  Denis McCarthy. All witnesses, save for Mr McCarthy, were called on behalf of the TRA. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel confirmed that it had read all the documents provided in the bundle in advanc