Mr James Parkhouse

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's name: Mr James Parkhouse

Teacher reference number: 1684804

Teacher's date of birth: 25 April 1993

Location teacher worked: West Sussex, South East England

Dates of professional conduct panel: 4 February to 6 February 2020

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 Parkhouse formerly employed in West Sussex, South East England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 4 February to 6 February 2020.

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 Parkhouse: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2020 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr James Parkhouse Teacher ref number: 1684804 Teacher date of birth: 25 April 1993 TRA reference: 17808 Date of determination: 6 February 2020 Former employer: Bohunt School, Worthing Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4 February 2020 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr James Parkhouse. The panel members were Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Ann Walker (former teacher panellist) and Mr Steve Oliver (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Anna Marjoram of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Luke Berry of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Parkhouse was 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 6 December 2019, as amended pursuant to an application from the presenting officer. It was alleged Mr James Parkhouse was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a Teacher of Mathematics at Bohunt School (the “School”): 1. He engaged in and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A and/or failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A including by: (a) in or around August 2018, contacting Pupil A via a personal Instagram account; (b) communicating with Pupil A via a personal Instagram account on one or more occasions; (c) sending messages to Pupil A via a personal Instagram account that were intimate and/or personal in nature on one or more occasions; (d) in or around September 2018: (i) buying cigarettes for Pupil A; (ii) meeting with Pupil A at the beach to provide her the cigarettes; and (iii) providing Pupil A with cigarettes. 2. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact with one or more pupils, including by: (a) on one more occasions, touching Pupil A and/or Pupil B on the lower back; (b) on one or more occasions, stroking and/or touching Pupil A and/or Pupil B’s hand. 3. He behaved, as may be found proven at 1(a) and/or (b) and/or (c) and/or (d) above, despite previous advice and/or training and/or warnings in relation to professional boundaries in or around February 2018 and/or April 2018. Mr Parkhouse admitted the facts of allegations 1 and 3 but denied allegation 2. Mr Parkhouse admitted that his behaviour at allegations 1 and 3 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct/and or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications An application was made by the presenting officer to amend the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 6 December 2019 by: 1. deleting allegation 1(e) in its entirety; 5 2. amending allegation 1(d) to read: “in September 2018: (i) buying cigarettes for Pupil A; (ii) meeting with Pupil A at the beach to provide her the cigarettes; and (iii) providing Pupil A with cigarettes. 3. amending allegation 3 to read: “You behaved, as may be found proven at 1(a) and/or (b) and/or (c) and/or (d) above, despite previous advice and/or trainings and/or warnings in relation to professional boundaries in or around February 2018 and/or April 2018. The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel is required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher, and the parties have been afforded that opportunity. The teacher has consented to the application. The panel considered that the amendment proposed being a correction of the dates as set out does not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. There is no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. Mr Parkhouse submitted that the amendments more accurately reflected the nature of the incidents concerned. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegations as proposed. The panel also considered an application from the presenting officer regarding child witnesses. The panel directed that Pupils A and B were to be treated as child witnesses since the panel is satisfied that they will both be under the age of 18 at the start of the hearing. The witnesses will, therefore, be known in these proceedings as Pupil A and Pupil B. The panel has considered paragraph 4.71 of the Procedures, and has noted that there is no medical evidence that the welfare of Pupil A or Pupil B will be prejudiced by giving evidence and the panel is content for both pupils to give evidence. If Pupil A and Pupil B give evidence, the panel will consider adopting such measures as it considers necessary to safeguard the interests of those pupils as a child witnesses. The panel has carefully considered whether Pupils A and B should be permitted to give evidence via video link if they so desire. The panel has considered its obligation to ensure that the teacher is not put at an unfair disadvantage, balanced against its duty in the public interest to investigate the allegations in so far as it is possible to do so 6 consistent with fairness to Mr Parkhouse. The panel has taken into account that there may be subtleties of tone or body language that may be lost via the medium of video link, but is satisfied that such factors could be taken into account by the panel when assessing the weight it attributes to such evidence. The panel is satisfied that its duty to investigate the allegations is such that it directed that Pupils A and B may give evidence by video link, if they so wish. The panel also directed, in accordance with paragraph 4.72 of the Procedures, that should Pupil A and Pupil B give evidence, Mr Parkhouse would not be allowed to examine or cross-examine the pupils directly and that they will be undertaken by such means, or by such person, as the panel may consider appropriate. 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 1 to 2 Section 2: Notice of Referral and Notice of Proceedings – pages 3 to 14 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 15 to 32 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 33 to 131 Section 5: Teacher documents – blank The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. The panel members also confirmed they had the read the papers relating to the application regarding child witnesses, which were provided to the panel at the commencement of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: • Witness A, [REDACTED] • Pupil A, pupil of the School; and • Pupil B, pupil of the School. All witnesses were called by the presenting officer. Mr Parkhouse also gave evidence. 7 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 Parkhouse had been employed at the School as a newly qualified teacher of mathematics since 1 September 2017. On 1 October 2018, Pupil A and Pupil B reported concerns about Mr Parkhouse. Pupil A stated that she and Mr Parkhouse had messaged each other on Instagram and had met up out of school, and that Mr Parkhouse had touched her lower back in a classroom. Pupil B claimed that Mr Parkhouse had touched her back at an open evening and had touched her hand in a classroom setting. It was alleged that Mr Parkhouse had been contacting Pupil A using Instagram between approximately August and September 2018. On 1 October 2018, Mr Parkhouse was suspended pending an investigation. The School conducted an internal disciplinary investigation, and on 15 October 2018 Mr Parkhouse attended an investigation meeting. Following the conclusion of the School’s disciplinary investigation, Mr Parkhouse attended a disciplinary hearing on 30 October 2018, after which he was summarily dismissed without notice. 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 engaged in and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A and/or failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A including by: a. in or around August 2018, contacting Pupil A via a personal Instagram account; b. communicating with Pupil A via a personal Instagram account on one or more occasions; c. sending messages to Pupil A via a personal Instagram account that were intimate and/or personal in nature on one or more occasions; d. in or around September 2018: i. buying cigarettes for Pupil A; 8 ii. meeting with Pupil A at the beach to provide her the cigarettes; and iii. providing Pupil A with cigarettes The panel considered all the evidence before it. The panel noted that Mr Parkhouse had admitted to the facts of the allegation