Mr Emerson Barr

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 Emerson Barr

Teacher reference number: 0961703

Teacher's date of birth: 21 September 1975

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 to 11 July 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 Emerson Barr formerly employed in Birmingham, West Midlands.

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 Emerson Barr: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Emerson Barr Teacher ref number: 0961703 Teacher date of birth: 21 September 1975 TRA reference: 20943 Date of determination: 11 July 2023 Former employer: Hawthorn Primary School, Birmingham City Council Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 and 11 July 2023 virtual means to consider the case of Mr Emerson Barr. The panel members were Mrs Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Gemma Hutchinson (teacher panellist) and Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Barr was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 21 April 2023. It was alleged that Mr Barr was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that he: 1. In relation to Child A: a) On or around 19 February 2022, he wrestled Child A to the floor and/or pushed him [REDACTED]; b) On or around 22 February 2022 he: i) Pushed Child A in the chest area; ii) Threw or pushed Child A to the floor; iii) Placed his hands around Child A’s neck. By a statement of agreed facts signed by both parties and dated 7 February 2023, Mr Barr has agreed the facts from which the allegations are based but, prior to the hearing, Mr Barr had not admitted that allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. At the outset of the hearing on 10 July 2023, Mr Barr confirmed that he now admits unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Decision on Excluding the Public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 5.85 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This follows a request by the TRA that the hearing should be in private. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(a) of the Regulations and the first and third bullet point of paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request for the hearing to be heard in private, was 5 a reasonable one given concerns about confidential matters relating to the identity of Child A being placed in the public domain. The panel considered whether ther e were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of Child A’s identity, but consider ed that their identity , and that of their siblings , was so intertwined with the facts of this case, that it would not be practicable to exclude the public from parts of the hearing only. The panel also considered whether it would sufficiently protect the interests of third parties to grant anonymity to those third parties without the need to exclude the public fro m the hearing. The panel were not satisfied that this would be a sufficient step given the background context to the allegations. The panel had regard to whether the TRA’s request runs contrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the case continues any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. The panel consider ed that in the circumstances of this case where the facts are so intertwined with Child A’s identity that the public interest will be satisfied by these public announcements. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of hearing, response to notice of hearing, and statement of agreed facts (“ASOF”) signed by both parties – pages 6 to 13 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statement – pages 14 to 23 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 24 to 127 Section 5: Teacher’s representations including email correspondence between Mr Barr and TRA’s representatives – pages 128 to 132 Section 6: TRA’s skeleton submissions – pages 133 to 144 (the bundle does not expressly contain a ‘section 6’ but, for convenience, the panel have incorporated the TRA’s skeleton submissions as a ‘section 6’ as the skeleton was provided separately to the main bundle). 6 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the [REDACTED], called by the presenting officer, and Mr Barr. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In September 2019, Mr Barr commenced working at Hawthorn Primary School (“the School”). In 2021, Mr Barr was appointed as acting up Deputy Head teacher until 21 March 2022. On 2 March 2022 the police were notified of an altercation between Mr Barr and Child A [REDACTED]. On 4 March 2022 Mr Barr attended West Midlands police custody for a voluntary police interview. On the same date he signed a Community Resolution Form in which he admitted the alleged conduct relating to the offence of wilful assault of a child aged under 16. On 12 July 2022, Mr Barr’s employer referred the matter to the TRA. On 14 February 2023 the TRA’s representatives reached the Agreed Statement of Facts with Mr Barr in which he admitted the factual allegations. Mr Barr informed the panel at the professional conduct hearing on 10 July 2023, that, on reflection, he now admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that Mr Barr was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that he: 1. In relation to Child A: a) On or around 19 February 2022, he wrestled Child A to the floor and/or pushed him [REDACTED]; 7 Mr Barr admitted this allegation in the Agreed Statement of Facts. He also accepted in the professional conduct hearing of 10 July 2023 that this conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Barr gave oral evidence in the hearing, during which he acknowledged his conduct during the incidents in question was wrong and fell short of the standards expected of teachers (as set out in the Teachers’ Standards). The panel had particular regard to the Police Crime report dated 2 March 2023 (pages 114 to 120 in the bundle), which included Child A’s account of events and Mr Barr’s admission. The Crime report also includes details of [REDACTED] confirmation of the incident that took place on 21 February 2022. Although [REDACTED] did not provide witness evidence, her confirmation contained within the Crime report is corroborated by Child A’s account (who also has not given evidence) and Mr Barr. The panel have attached weight to the contents of the Crime report in their considerations. The panel have also attached weight to the Community Resolution Form dated 4 March 2023 (pages 121 to 125) which sets out the details of the incident in question and which Mr Barr has signed, indicating his admission of the allegations against him. In light of Mr Barr’s evidence and the Agreed Statement of Facts, the panel have found this allegation proven. b) On or around 22 February 2022 he: i) Pushed Child A in the chest area; ii) Threw or pushed Child A to the floor; iii) Placed his hands around Child A’s neck. Mr Barr admitted this allegation in the Agreed Statement of Facts. He also accepted in the professional conduct hearing of 10 July 2023 that this conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Barr gave oral evidence in the hearing, during which he acknowledged his conduct during the incidents in question was wrong and fell short of the standards expected of teachers (as set out in the Teachers’ Standards). The panel had particular regard to the Police Crime report dated 2 March 2023 (pages 114 to 120 in the bundle), which included Child A’s account of events and Mr Barr’s admission.