Mr Grant Twist

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 Grant Twist

Location teacher worked: East London, East Of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 May 2024 to 31 May 2024.

Outcome type: No order made

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

Grant Twist formerly employed in East London, East of 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 Grant Twist: 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 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 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Grant Twist TRA reference: 20283 Date of determination: 4 June 2024 Current employer: Snaresbrook Preparatory School, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 30 to 31 May 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, and on 4 June 2024 on Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Grant Twist. The panel members were Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Paul Hawkins (lay panellist) and Debra Vaughan (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Reynolds of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Twist was present and was represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan of Cornwall Street Barristers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 18 March 2024, as amended. It was alleged that Mr Twist was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that between July 2019 and February 2020: 1. He was a member of WhatsApp chats alongside one or more of his colleagues in which he a) Sent and/or received inappropriate messages which discussed his female colleagues in a way which was i) Sexually objectifying; ii) Homophobic; iii) Misogynistic; iv) Denigrating. b) sent and/or received inappropriate messages, the contents of which were racist. c) sent and/or received inappropriate messages about students in which he stated, “I haven’t liked this weeks English tbh. Nothing wrong with the lessons but the spaz boys in my class cannot cope with the creativity side of things” 2. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1(a)(i) above was of a sexual nature. Mr Twist admitted the particulars of allegation 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) but denied allegation 2, as set out in the statement of agreed and disputed facts signed by Mr Twist on 9 November 2022. Preliminary applications On the second day of the hearing, the panel invited submissions from the parties in respect of the stem of allegation 1. Subsequently, the presenting officer made an application to amend the stem of allegation 1 from: “You were a member of a WhatsApp group chat alongside 3 of your colleagues in which you…” to “You were a member of WhatsApp chats alongside one or more of your colleagues in which you…” Mr Twist did not object to the application. 5 The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel considered that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and scope of allegation 1. The proposed amendment sought to clarify the case against Mr Twist, which was understood by the parties as relating to WhatsApp messages sent and received. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendment did not amount to a material change to allegation 1. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. The panel did not consider that granting the application for the proposed amendment would cause unfairness and/or prejudice to Mr Twist on the basis that: Mr Twist had at all material times been aware of the case he had to answer; the proposed amendment did not materially change allegation 1; and Mr Twist had been informed of the proposed amendment and did not object to the same. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 5 to 18 • Section 2: Statement of agreed facts and disputed facts – pages 20 to 24 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 26 to 426 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 428 to 467 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 469 to 623. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 6 Witnesses The TRA did not call any witnesses to attend the hearing. The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Twist. The panel also heard oral mitigation evidence from the following individuals called by Mr Twist: • Individual A [REDACTED] at Snaresbrook Preparatory School, Mr Twist’s current employer, and former colleague of Mr Twist at the School • Individual B [REDACTED] of Snaresbrook Preparatory School, Mr Twist’s current employer Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: Between April 2017 and May 2021, Mr Twist was employed as a teacher at [REDACTED](‘the School’). Between July 2019 and February 2020, Mr Twist and 3 colleagues were members of a WhatsApp group chat (‘the WhatsApp Group’). The WhatsApp Group, along with further individual WhatsApp chats, was discovered during an external investigation and extraction reports from the WhatsApp chats were released to the LADO on 24 March 2021. In April 2021, the School commenced an investigation into the messages sent and received by Mr Twist. Mr Twist resigned from his position at the School on or around 21 May 2021. The matter was referred to the TRA in September 2021. 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: 1. You were a member of WhatsApp chats alongside one or more of your colleagues in which you a) Sent and/or received inappropriate messages which discussed your female colleagues in a way which was 7 i) Sexually objectifying; The panel noted that, in a statement of agreed and disputed facts signed by Mr Twist on 9 November 2022, Mr Twist admitted allegation 1(a)(i). Notwithstanding this, the panel considered the evidence presented to it and made a determination. The panel was provided with copies of the WhatsApp messages. The panel noted that Mr Twist was a member of WhatsApp chats alongside one or more of his colleagues. The panel noted the following messages sent by Mr Twist, during conversations about one or more female colleagues: • “No bra” • “Risky when bending over a table” • “No kid wants a loose boob smacking them in the fac • “Imagine tagging her in the boob” • “New rule. Tag nips only” • In response to a discussion about “tagging” a female colleague on the breasts, bottom and vagina, Mr Twist sent a message saying “With my dick”. Mr Twist confirmed that the word “tag” referenced a ‘game’ played by members of staff at the School which involved touching another person. Mr Twist’s evidence was that 2 female members of staff were aware of the ‘tag’ game, but not that there were discussions that it should extend to the touching of intimate body parts. The panel also noted that, in response to a message about a female colleague that read “Guzzle the cum and spits it into the air…Before swallowing it”, Mr Twist stated: • “like a water display”. Further, the panel was provided with a copy of a conversation between Mr Twist and his colleagues about the perceived preferred sexual positions of female colleagues and noted that, during this conversation, Mr Twist stated: • “So none on top… boring” The panel noted the following messages received by Mr Twist: • “Someone’s gunna have to take one for the team and donkey punch her” • “…[REDACTED] wasn’t wearing a bra today” • “Her erect nipple nearly cut me” 8 • “She’s a kinky slut bucket” • “Filthy bitch” • “Dirty whore” • “Loves the cock” • “Was gonna say you’re going to accidentally tag her boobs or snatch” • “Makes [REDACTED] cum slave or something” • “Jump on my cock and balls? Done” • “She’d make a decent porn hub video”. The panel considered the written and oral evidence of Mr Twist in which Mr Twist acknowledged that he did choose to join in with the sexual objectification of female colleagues. Mr Twist’s evidence was that the messages he sent, namely “So none on top…boring” were ways to “try and criticise the idiocy of such talk about sex positions of women”. Mr Twist submitted that he was ashamed to have been “drawn into the toxic masculinity” and “to not have recognised the inappropriate nature of the conversation at the time”. Mr Twist submitted that his behaviour was out of character. In his oral evidence, Mr Twist accepted that his message stating “With my dick” was a comment in which he was alluding to touching a female colleague’s vagina with his penis. On examination of the evidence before it, the panel was satisfied that Mr Twist sent and received inappropriate messages about female colleagues. The panel did not accept Mr Twist’s submission that he was trying to criticise the conversation about sex positions. The panel found that Mr Twist engaged in the conversation and consider