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:

6605721

Teacher's date of birth:

26 January 1945

Location teacher worked:

Cambridgeshire, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel:

23 April 2019

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 Stewart formerly employed in Cambridgeshire, East of England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 23 April 2019.

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 Stewart: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Preliminary Applications 4 D. Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence 6 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 James Stewart Teacher ref number: 6605721 Teacher date of birth: 26 January 1945 TRA reference: 12989 Date of determination: 23 April 2019 Former employer: Sawtry Community College, Cambridgeshire A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 23 April 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr James Stewart. The panel members were Mr Roger Woods (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist) and Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Dean Hickey of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP (solicitors). The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Luke Deal of Browne Jacobson LLP (solicitors). The teacher was not present and was not represented. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 16 January 2019. It was alleged that Mr James Stewart was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. He was convicted on or around 9 September 2016 at Cambridge Crown Court of one count of wilful misconduct / wilful neglect to perform duty in a public office, a common law offence, for which he was sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment (concurrent); 2. He was convicted on or around 9 September 2016 at Cambridge Crown Court of one of more counts of fraud by abuse of position contrary to section 1(2)(C) and Section 4 Fraud Act 2006 for which he was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment (concurrent). 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 – page 2 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 4 to 11 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 13 to 82 Section 4: Teacher document – page 84 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Preliminary Applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Stewart. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the panel determined to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. Following oral evidence from a member of TRA staff, who confirmed that she had sent the Notice of Proceedings dated 16 January 2019 to the teacher at his last known 5 address, the panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of Regulation 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understood 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 making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel was satisfied that the teacher was aware of the proceedings and that the notice had been sent to an address from which the teacher had previously responded. There had been no application to adjourn today’s hearing. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived his right to participate in the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing’s taking place. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher’s participating in the hearing. The panel had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, and gave further regard to the nature of the evidence against the teacher. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of its reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. Moreover, the panel was mindful that in this case, only the certificate of conviction stood as conclusive proof to establish the relevant facts, and that it would not need to re-examine the facts of the case. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and accepted that fairness to the teacher was of prime importance. However, it considered that teacher had waived his right to appear. By taking such measures referred to above, the panel was satisfied that it would be able to address any unfairness. These are serious allegations and the panel determined that there was a clear public interest in proceeding with the hearing without further delay. The panel was conscious of the considerable length of time which had elapsed since the facts of the allegation and determined that it was also in the teacher’s interest for matters to be resolved. D. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. The panel confirmed that it had read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. 6 This was a case in which it was alleged that Mr Stewart had been convicted of relevant offences by way of the common law offence of misconduct in a public office and sections 1(2)(C) and 4 of the Fraud Act 2006 for actions carried out whilst in post initially as headteacher and latterly as Executive Principal of the College. Findings of fact The findings of fact were as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proven, for these reasons: You have been convicted, at any time, of the following relevant criminal offences: 1. You were convicted on or around 9 September 2016 at Cambridge Crown Court of one count of wilful Misconduct / wilful neglect to perform duty in a Public Office, a common law offence. For which you were sentenced to 12 months imprisonment (concurrent) 2. You were convicted on or around 9 September 2016 at Cambridge Crown Court of one of more counts of Fraud by abuse of position contrary to section 1(2)(C) and Section 4 Fraud Act 2006 for which you were sentenced to 4 years imprisonment (concurrent). The panel was satisfied by the Certificate of Conviction dated 6 October 2017, included in the bundle, that the facts of particulars 1 and 2 of the allegation were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Stewart in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part Two, Mr Stewart 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…;  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards… and  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel considered that Mr Stewart’s behaviour in committing the offences for which he was convicted and imprisoned would seriously 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 has noted that Mr Stewart’s behaviour ultimately led 7 to his receiving a sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment, which is indicative of the seriousness of the offences. This is a case involving misconduct in a public office and serious, systematic fraud which the panel considers to be relevant offences. The panel found the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction is relevant to the teacher’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction is a relevant offence is clearly 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