Mr Jay Plucknett

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 Jay Plucknett

Teacher reference number: 3371842

Teacher's date of birth: 13 October 1983

Location teacher worked: Essex, East of England

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 Jay Plucknett, formerly employed in Essex, East of 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 Jay Plucknett: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Teacher ref number: Mr Jay Plucknett 3371842 Teacher dat e of birth: TRA reference: 13 October 1983 19743 Dat e of determination: 25 March 2024 Former employer: Castle View School, Essex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by virtual means on Monday 25 March 2024, to consider the case of Mr Jay Plucknett. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Karen Graham (teacher panellist) and Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Plucknett was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the N otice of P roceedings dated 20 December 2023. It was alleged that Mr Plucknett was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: On 22 April 2022, he was convicted of Sexual Activity with a Child between the dates of 1 February 2017 and 19 June 2017 by a person in a position of trust in contravention of s.16(1)(e)(i) Sexual Offences Act 2003. The allegation was admitted, and the teacher further admitted that this conduct amounted to the conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Plucknett. 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 Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession updated May 2020, (the “Procedures”). Therefore, t he 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 expla ined 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 firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1:- i) The panel noted that the teacher confirmed in his response to the Notice of Proceedings dated 7 January 2024 that he would not be attending the hearing, 5 and that he did not intend to be represented at the hearing. The teacher also confirmed in a letter to the TRA dated 26 February 2024 that he would not be in attendance at the hearing, due to the need to consider his [REDACTED]. The panel therefore consider ed that the teacher expressly waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. ii) The panel did not consider that an adjournment would result in the teacher attending voluntarily. iii) The panel did not feel there was a disadvantage to the teacher in this instance, given that there is a conviction. The teacher did not offer any evidence or written representations to be considered by the panel. There were also no witnesses in attendance, so there was no evidence to be tested at the hearing. iv) The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and it felt that, if any gaps were to arise during the course of the hearing, the panel was able to take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available, and in considering whether the presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching t he wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. v) The panel felt the risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the teacher was low. The teacher had communicated to the TRA on two occasions that he did not wish to attend, and in his letter dated 26 February 2024, he provided clear reasons as to why this was the case. vi) The panel recognised that the allegation against the teacher was 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. vii) 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. viii) The panel noted that there were no witnesses to be called, and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses wa s 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 considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear, and by taking such 6 measures referred to above to address any potential unfairness insofar as is possible, that on balance, this was a serious allegation and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing continuing as listed. The panel decided to continue in the absence of the teacher. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, Anonymised Pupil List and List of Key People – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and Response – pages 7 to 22 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 23 to 116 Section 4: Teacher’s Response – pages 117 to 120 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence at the hearing. 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 Plucknett was employed at Futures Community College (Southchurch High School) from January 2009 to 31 August 2017. Pupil A was a student at Futures Community College, until she left on [REDACTED]. On 1 September 2017, Mr Plucknett joined Castle View School (the “School”) as a Teacher. In or around July 2020, Pupil A reported to police that she had been sexually assaulted by Mr Plucknett, by hugging, kissing, touching and sexualised communication whilst she was a pupil at Futures Community College and he was a teacher. Pupil A stated that they had a consensual sexual relationship for about a year after she left. On 29 July 2020, an email was received into the School “admin” email account from the Local Authority Designated Officer (the “LADO”), raising a staffing concern. 7 On 31 July 2020, the Headteacher of the School received an email from the LADO which advised that the Police planned to interview Mr Plucknett in the week commencing 3 August 2020. On 25 August 2020, the Headteacher of the School received a call from the LADO which advised of a serious allegation raised against Mr Plucknett. On 1 September 2020, Mr Plucknett was arrested on suspicion of Sexual Activity Involving a Child Under 16. On 2 September 2020, a LADO meeting was held. On 16 November 2020, a disciplinary investigation meeting took place, which Mr Plucknett did not attend. On 25 November 2020, Mr Plucknett submitted his resignation letter and he left his employment on 26 November 2020. On 4 December 2020, a Disciplinary Hearing was held. The conclusion at the Disciplinary Hearing was that, had Mr Plucknett not voluntarily resigned from the School during the disciplinary process, he would have been dismissed without notice for gross misconduct. On 13 January 2021, Mr Plucknett was referred to the TRA. 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: You have been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 22 April 2022, you were convicted of Sexual Activity with a Child between the dates of 1 February 2017 and 19 June 2017 by a person in a position of trust in contravention of s.16(1)(e)(i) Sexual Offences Act 2003. The allegation was admitted by Mr Plucknett in the Statement of Agreed Facts that he signed on 11 November 2023, and also in his response to the Notice of Hearing dated 7 January 2024. The panel had sight of the Certificate of Conviction confirming Mr Plucknett’s conviction of the alleged offence. The panel accepted the Certificate of Conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. On 22 Apri