Mr James Young

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 Young

Teacher reference number: 1145733

Teacher's date of birth: 14 July 1992

Location teacher worked: Milton Keynes, south east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 7 November 2022

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 Young, formerly employed in Milton Keynes, 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 Young: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr James Young Teacher ref number: 1145733 Teacher date of birth: 14 July 1992 TRA reference: 19891 Date of determination: 7 November 2022 Former employer: Romans Field School, Milton Keynes Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 7 November 2022 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr James Young. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Sharon Bhogal (teacher panellist) and Ms Victoria Jackson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Rebecca Utton of Birketts LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Young that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Young provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Shaun Moran of Capsticks LLP, Mr Young, or any representative for Mr Young. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 31 October 2022. It was alleged that Mr Young was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 24 June 2021, he was convicted of Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child. Mr Young admitted the facts of allegation 1 and that his behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence falling short of the standards of behaviour expected of a teacher, as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Young on 4 July 2022. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 6 to 29 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 30 to 34 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 35 to 228 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 229 to 238 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Young on 4 July 2022. 5 Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Young for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had 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 was necessary or appropriate in this case. In summary, Mr Young commenced employment with Roman Field School (‘the School’) as a teacher, on 9 April 2018. Mr Young was arrested on 29 May 2020, after having a conversation of a sexual nature with a child. On 31 May 2020, Mr Young informed the School of his arrest. A referral was made to the MASH and the LADO. On 2 June 2020, Mr Young was suspended from his role at the school. Mr Young’s suspension was reviewed monthly and was continued, between July 2020 and February 2021. The school commenced its disciplinary investigation on 22 February 2021 and the police concluded their investigation on 23 February 2021. The police referred the case to the CPS. On 10 March 2021, the School’s disciplinary hearing took place. The School referred the matter to the TRA on the same day. Mr Young’s contract of employment was terminated on 12 March 2021. Mr Young was convicted at Northampton Magistrates Court on 24 June 2021, of one offence of being a person aged 18 or over and communicating or attempting to communicate with a child, a person under 16 who he did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being intended to encourage her to make a communication that was sexual, namely sexual gratification, contrary to section 1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Mr Young was sentenced on 23 July 2021, at Northampton Crown Court, to 8 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months, to undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement for a maximum of 10 days, to participate in the Horizon Sexual Offending Credited Programme for 31 sessions and to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work. Further, Mr Young was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 10 years, ordered to pay £450 Costs and £156 Victims Surcharge. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 24 June 2021, you were convicted of Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child. The panel considered the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Young on 4 July 2022. In that statement of agreed facts, Mr Young admitted the particulars of allegation 1. Further, it was admitted the facts of the allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Northampton Crown Court, which detailed that Mr Young had been convicted of one count of adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child. In respect of the allegations, Mr Young was sentenced at Northampton Crown Court to 8 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months. The requirements of the suspended sentence were that Mr Young undertake a rehabilitation activity requirement for a maximum of 10 days, participates in the Horizon Sexual Offending Credited Programme for 31 sessions and carries out 150 hours of unpaid work. In addition, Mr Young was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 10 years, ordered to pay £450 Costs and £156 Victims Surcharge. On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. 7 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Young, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Young 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, by o Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position; and o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the incident took place outside of the education setting and had not involved pupils or other members of the School. Nevertheless, having considered all the facts of the case, the panel considered that Mr Young’s actions and conviction were relevant to his profession as a teacher and him working with children and/or in an education setting. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel was particularly concerned that, when engaging on the online adult chatroom, Mr Young used his title of being a primary school teacher as his username and made reference to his profession within his communications. Further, he engaged in sexual and inappropriate conversation with a person who he believed to be a [REDACTED] child, despite having been informed by the child of their age on several occasions during their conversations. The panel noted from the bundle that Mr Young had received very thorough safeguarding training as part of his employment. The panel found Mr Young’s actions, leading to his conviction, an extremely serious breach of safeguarding requirements and concluded that Mr Young presented a significant risk to pupils and/or children. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Young’s behaviou