Mr Gordon Waterson

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 Gordon Waterson

Teacher reference number: 19396

Teacher's date of birth: 2 January 1989

Location teacher worked: Wokingham, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 6 November 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 Gordon Waterson, formerly employed in Wokingham, South East England.

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 Gordon Waterson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Gordon Waterson Teacher ref number: 3665627 Teacher date of birth: 2 January 1989 TRA reference: 19396 Date of determination: 6 November 2023 Former employer: Ludgrove School, Wokingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 6 November 2023 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Gordon Waterson. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist) and Mr Tom Snowdon (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Waterson that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Waterson provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Sherelle Appleby of Browne Jacobson LLP, Mr Waterson, or any representative for Mr Waterson. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 2 November 2023. It was alleged that Mr Waterson was guilty, having been convicted at any time, of the following relevant offences: 1. In March 2022, he was convicted at Reading Crown Court for: a. 3 offences of Making Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children Contrary to Section 1(1)(a) & 6 of The Protection of Children Act 1978; and b. 3 offence of Distributing indent Photograph of Pseudo-Photograph of a Child contrary to Section 1(1)(b) & 6 of The Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Waterson admitted the facts of allegations 1(a) and 1(b), and that his behaviour amounted to the conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the response to the notice of hearing dated 1 March 2023 and in the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Waterson on 29 September 2023. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of meeting – provided separately • Section 2: Statement of agreed facts and teacher’s response to the notice of referral form – pages 3 to 12 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 14 to 38 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 40 to 41 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts, which Mr Waterson signed on 29 September 2023, and was subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 29 September 2023. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Waterson for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Waterson was employed as a teacher at Ludgrove School (‘the School’). On 8 March 2022, Mr Waterson was convicted at Reading Crown Court for making indecent photo/pseudo-photograph of children and distributing indecent/pseudo photographs of children. On 22 April 2022, Mr Waterson was sentenced at Reading Crown Court to a suspended sentence of 2 years, 180 hours of unpaid work, to pay £520 costs, a requirement to register with the police for a period of 10 years, and a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved for these reasons: You were convicted at any time, of the relevant offences: 1. On 8 March 2022, you were convicted at Reading Crown Court for: a. 3 offences of Making Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children Contrary to Section 1(1)(a) & 6 of The Protection of Children Act 1978; and b. 3 offence of Distributing indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of a Child contrary to Section 1(1)(b) & 6 of The Protection of Children Act 1978. 6 The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Waterson on 29 September 2023. In that statement of agreed facts, Mr Waterson admitted the particulars of allegations 1(a) and 1(b) and that the fact of the allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’), which states that where there has been a conviction, at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Reading Crown Court, which detailed that on 8 March 2022, Mr Waterson was convicted of 3 counts of making an indecent photograph/ pseudo photograph of a child, contrary to sections 1(1)(a) & 6 of the protection of children act 1978, and 3 counts of distributing an indecent photograph/ pseudo photograph of a child. The panel specifically noted that Mr Waterson pleaded guilty to all 6 offences, and he was charged with 3 counts of distributing and 3 counts of making indecent images, one of each of CAT A, CAT B and CAT C. Following his conviction, Mr Waterson was sentenced on 22 April 2022 to 2 years imprisonment (suspended for 2 years); a 10 year sexual harm prevention order; a requirement to register with the police for a period of 10 years; an order to pay £420 prosecution costs and a £100 surcharge. He was also subject to an order for the forfeiture of iPhones. On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegations 1(a) and 1(b) were proven. Findings as conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Waterson, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Waterson was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school 7 The panel noted that Mr Waterson’s actions did not appear to involve a pupil or a colleague at the School. However, the panel considered that his actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting, in particular because he had accessed and distributed indecent images of children between the ages of 2 and 12. He had taught and might continue to teach children of the same or similar age in the future. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Waterson’s behaviour in committing these offences could undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. His conduct ran counter to what should have been at the very core of his practice as a teacher with a duty of care towards children. The panel noted that Mr Waterson’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The child protection and public protection issues engaged by Mr Waterson’s actions were demonstrated by the Court's sentence. This was a case involving an offence of any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child or permitting any such activity, including one-off incidents/revenge pornography, which the Advice states are more likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel took into account the sentencing remarks submitted as part of the bundle, where it was stated that Mr Waterson’s [REDACTED] had supported [REDACTED]. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Waterson’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be