Mr Jamie Wheeler

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 Jamie Wheeler

Teacher reference number: 1560420

Teacher's date of birth: 14 February 1991 

Location teacher worked: Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 1 July 2024

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 Jamie Wheeler formerly employed in Yorkshire and the Humber.

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 Jamie Wheeler Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Jamie Wheeler Teacher ref number: 1560420 Teacher date of birth: 14 February 1991 TRA reference: 20752 Date of determination: 1 July 2024 Former employer: [REDACTED] (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 1 July 2024 by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Jamie Wheeler. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist - in the chair), Ms Jo Palmer- Tweed (teacher panellist) and Dr Sian Rees-Evans (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Yasmin Omotosho of 7BR Barristers Chambers instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Wheeler was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 16 April 2024 as amended pursuant to a decision of the panel as set out in the preliminary applications section below. It was alleged that Mr Wheeler was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 3 April 2023, he was convicted of: a. Six counts of assault a boy under 13 by touching, contrary to section 7 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; b. Eight counts of offender of any age cause/incite a boy under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration, contrary to section 8(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; c. Two counts of adult meet a boy under 16 years of age following grooming, contrary to section 15 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; d. Five counts of make indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child, contrary to section 1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 e. One count of possessing a paedophile manual, contrary to section 69(1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015. In the absence of any response from the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. Mr Wheeler has not admitted that he is guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications Application to exclude the public The presenting officer applied to exclude the public from the hearing pursuant to paragraph 5.85(iii) of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the “Procedures”). The allegation relates to a series of serious offences, and there is a concern about the risk of the children concerned being identified. The presenting officer made representations that during the criminal proceedings, the police had strict reporting restrictions in place to protect the identity of the children involved. No representations were made by Mr Wheeler as he was absent from the hearing. The panel considered whether excluding the public for a limited period of the hearing or the granting anonymity would suffice to fulfil the purpose of the exclusion. However, the panel considered that the circumstances of the offence may lead to the identification of 5 the children, and that in those circumstances it would be impracticable to admit and exclude the public as the hearing proceeded. The panel decided to accede to the application to protect the interests of children, and that those interests outweighed any other competing interests. The panel’s decision, in due course, would be announced in public fulfilling the public interest considerations of declaring and upholding standards in the profession. Application to proceed in Mr Wheeler’s absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (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 5.23 and 5.24 of 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 has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is 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 took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel noted that a bundle of evidence upon which the TRA intended to rely was sent to Mr Wheeler on 7 March 2024 and was signed for by His Majesty’s Prison on 8 March 2024. The panel was informed that no response was received. On 16 April 2024 the notice of proceedings was sent to Mr Wheeler at His Majesty’s Prison. The panel has seen a reply slip confirming that Mr Wheeler had received the notice. No response from Mr Wheeler was received. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. 6 There was no indication that an adjournment might lead to Mr Wheeler attending the hearing. Such an adjournment would have to be for a period of at least 10 weeks to enable a second notice of proceedings to be served effectively. Mr Wheeler was not legally represented and he had provided no indication that he wished to be legally represented. Mr Wheeler has provided no response to the allegations and this was noted by the panel. However, this was a case involving numerous convictions and the panel would be obliged to accept the certificate of conviction as proof of the offence and the facts necessarily implied by the convictions. 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 had no explanation from Mr Wheeler as to the reason for his non-attendance. The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are very 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 children involved would likely have an interest in this case concluding in order to move forwards. The panel noted that there were no witnesses to be called, and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses was not a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considers that in light of: • the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; • an adjournment being unlikely to result in Mr Wheeler attending; and • the serious nature of the allegations, the public interest of this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time (and giving closure to the families involved) was in favour of this hearing continuing today. 7 Amendment of the allegation The presenting officer applied to amend the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings to include the words “You have been convicted of a relevant offence, namely” which had been inadvertently omitted. The panel was told that the omitted words had been included in documents sent to Mr Wheeler on several occasions. The panel has seen a letter dated 7 March 2024 to Mr Wheeler including the omitted words. It was plain to the panel that the omission from the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings was a typographical error. The panel was told that Mr Wheeler had not engaged with these proceedings at all. The panel considered that Mr Wheeler had waived the right to make representations regarding the amendment. Since Mr Wheeler had not engaged with these proceedings at all, it was unlikely that his defence would have been different had the amendment been made at an earlier stage. The panel decided to amend the allegation as requested. 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 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 16 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 17 to 287 In addition, the panel was provided with the following: Skeleton argument to exclude the public with appended documents – 57 pages. Proceeding in absence bundle – 18 pages. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing, together with the skeleton argument bundle and the proceeding in absence bundle. Witnesses The panel heard no oral evidence. 8 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully c