Mr James McGiveron

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 James McGiveron

Teacher reference number: 1738523

Teacher's date of birth: 11 November 1994

Location teacher worked: Reading, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 July 2023 to 26 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 James McGiveron, formerly employed in Reading, 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 James McGiveron 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 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr James McGiveron Teacher ref number: 1738523 Teacher date of birth: 11 November 1994 TRA reference: 20732 Date of determination: 26 July 2023 Former employer: Denefield School, Reading Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 to 26 July by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr James McGiveron. The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Charlotte McCallum (lay panellist) and Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexis Dite of Red Lion Chambers instructed by Kingsley Napley. Mr McGiveron was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 12 May 2023. It was alleged that Mr McGiveron was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a teacher at Denefield School, he: 1. Sent inappropriate messages on social media to former Denefield students Pupil B and/or Pupil C as set out in Schedule A; and/or 2. Shared inappropriate images of an explicit sexual nature with former Denefield students Pupil B and/or Pupil C on social media. 3. His conduct at Particulars 1 and/or 2 was: a. of a sexual nature and/or b. sexually motivated. 4. He sent inappropriate and/or sexual messages to Pupil B and/or Pupil C; a. in the knowledge that they were vulnerable pupils; and/or b. because they were vulnerable pupils. Schedule A is included within the notice of hearing but for brevity is not repeated here. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel decided to admit a supplemental bundle of 50 pages relevant to the question as to whether to proceed in the absence of Mr McGiveron. The bundle contained evidence of attempts to contact Mr McGiveron and any responses received. As such it was relevant to the question of whether Mr McGiveron was aware of the proceedings and whether he had waived his right to participate. It was fair to admit the bundle in order that the panel could determine whether or not to proceed in Mr McGiveron’s absence. The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 (1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”) when sending the Notice of Hearing to Mr McGiveron. The notice had been sent to the teacher’s last known address by first class post. The address used was 5 that contained on the form completed by Denefield School (“the School”) referring Mr McGiveron to the TRA. The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession, May 2020 (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1. • The panel noted that, in December 2022, Mr McGiveron responded to emails sent to him although the last communication from Mr McGiveron was sent on 9 December 2022. The same email that Mr McGiveron had responded to was used to inform Mr McGiveron that he could access the proposed hearing bundle via a secure online document portal and to inform him that although the deadline for submitting any written representations or documents for this hearing had passed, he could still make an application to submit such representations if he wished to do so. The latter email referred to the hearing in this matter being due to take place from 24 to 26 July 2023. No response was received, and the panel could only conclude that Mr McGiveron had waived his right to participate in the hearing knowing when it was taking place. This was consistent with Mr McGiveron’s failure to participate in the School’s disciplinary hearing, which he also chose not to attend. • No adjournment has been sought by Mr McGiveron and there was no evidence that an adjournment would result in Mr McGiveron’s attendance. The panel did not know when an adjourned hearing would be likely to be heard, but it would likely take several months to convene. 6 • Mr McGiveron is unrepresented, and has expressed no wish to obtain any legal representation in these proceedings. • The panel had notes of an investigation meeting that Mr McGiveron participated in on 3 May 2022. The panel was able to ask questions regarding the accuracy of those notes given that the [REDACTED] who had asked questions of Mr McGiveron during the meeting was to be called to give oral evidence. • The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon are to be called to give evidence and the panel can test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. • The panel recognised there was a risk of reaching an improper conclusion about Mr McGiveron’s absence. He provided no reason for his non-attendance, but the panel noted that this lack of engagement was consistent with his decision not to attend the School’s disciplinary investigation and the “no comment” interview he gave to the police. • The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. • The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged is said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at the School. It was recognised that the School had an interest in this hearing taken place in order to move forwards. • The panel noted that there were three witnesses prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and potentially distressing for those witnesses to have to attend at a future date. Delaying the case may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of: • Mr McGiveron’s waiver of his right to appear; • the measures available to address any unfairness insofar as is possible; 7 • the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; and • the public interest of these serious allegations proceeding within a reasonable time, that this hearing should continue today. 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 4 to 5 Section 2: Initial letter to teacher – pages 6 to 11 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 12 to 24 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 204 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 205 to 208 In addition, the panel agreed to accept a supplementary bundle of 50 pages at pages 209 to 259 relevant to the presenting officer’s application to proceed in Mr McGiveron’s absence. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the [REDACTED] (who also had [REDACTED] responsibilities at the relevant times) at Denefield School (“the School”), Pupil B and Pupil C, all called by the presenting officer. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr McGiveron was employed at the School from 1 September 2016. On 23 March 2022 Mr McGiveron was arrested in respect of suspected grooming. A disciplinary hearing was held by the School on 17 June 2022. On 20 June 2022 Mr McGiveron ceased to be employed by the School. 8 Findings o