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:

9442543

Teacher's date of birth:

18 January 1973

Date of professional conduct panel:

18 May 2018

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 Hamish Ellwood, of Herefordshire, West Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 18 May 2018.

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 Hamish Ellwood: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2018 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of Agreed Facts 5 D. Decision and reasons 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 9 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Hamish Ellwood Teacher ref number: 9442543 Teacher date of birth: 18 January 1973 TRA reference: 15054 Date of determination: 18 May 2018 A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 18 May 2018 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Hamish Ellwood. The panel members were Mr Melvyn Kershaw (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Colin Parker (teacher panellist) and Ms Karen McArthur (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Surekha Gollapudi of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, the Agency agreed to a request from Mr Ellwood that the allegations be considered without a hearing after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice. Mr Ellwood provided a signed Statement of Agreed Facts and admitted conviction of relevant offences. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Mr Ellwood. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 29 January 2018. It was alleged that Mr Ellwood was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that he was convicted in the Worcester Crown Court on 2 October 2015 of: 1. Possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 9th July 2013 contrary to s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which he was issued a community order, an unpaid work requirement, a sex offenders notice of 5 years, a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years, forfeiture of the computer hard drive tower, and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £60. 2. Possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 25th July 2013 contrary to s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which he was given a concurrent community order. 3. Possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 9th June 2013 contrary to s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which he was been given a concurrent community order. Mr Ellwood has admitted the fact of the convictions. C. 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 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Referral, Response and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 10b Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 12 to 17 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 35 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 37 to 54 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. 5 Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts which was signed by Mr Ellwood on 28 March 2018. D. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: In advance of the meeting, the Agency agreed to a request from Mr Ellwood that the allegations be considered without a hearing. The panel has 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 is necessary or appropriate in this case. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: You are guilty of receiving a conviction, at any time, of a relevant criminal offence in that you were convicted in the Worcester Crown Court on 2 October 2015 of the following offences: 1. Possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 9th July 2013 contrary to s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which you were issued a community order, an unpaid work requirement, a sex offenders notice of 5 years, a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years, forfeiture of the computer hard drive tower, and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £60. The panel has had regard to the certificate of conviction and PNC record evidencing this conviction. The panel also had regard to the Statement of Agreed Facts in which Mr Ellwood admitted the allegation. The panel has therefore found this allegation proven. 2. Possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 25th July 2013 contrary to s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which you were given a concurrent community order. The panel has had regard to the certificate of conviction and PNC record evidencing this conviction. 6 The panel also had regard to the Statement of Agreed Facts in which Mr Ellwood admitted the allegation. The panel has therefore found this allegation proven. 3. Possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 9th June 2013 contrary to s160 Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which you were given a concurrent community order. The panel has had regard to the certificate of conviction and PNC record evidencing this conviction. The panel also had regard to the Statement of Agreed Facts in which Mr Ellwood admitted the allegation. The panel has therefore found this allegation proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Ellwood in relation to the facts it has found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. We consider that by reference to Part Two, Mr Ellwood is 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. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have an impact on his suitability to teach. The panel has also taken account of how the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Ellwood’s behaviour in committing the offences would affect the public confidence in the teaching profession given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that the teacher’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment which is indicative that the offences were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. This is a case of offences involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one off incidents, which the Advice states are likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel has considered Mr Ellwood’s account of the particularly difficult family circumstances which occurred at the time of his committing these offences and that he 7 committed the offences whilst investigating whether a third party was viewing such images. The panel acknowledged that Mr Ellwood accepted responsibility for his actions during the police investigation. However, the panel has found the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the convictions is relevant to the teacher’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considers that a finding that these convictions are relevant offences is necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it is necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. The panel’s findings against Mr Ellwood involved his conviction of three offences related to possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child. The panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Ellwood were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel also considered that there was a strong public interest in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession as the conduct found against Mr Ellwood was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated by members of the public. Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order taking into account th