Mr Jeffrey Wilson

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 Jeffrey Wilson

Teacher reference number: 1549073

Teacher's date of birth: 23 July 1991

Location teacher worked: Cambridge, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 October 2023

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 Jeffrey Wilson, formerly employed in Cambridge, 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 Jeffrey Wilson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 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: Teacher ref number: Mr Jeffrey Wilson 1549073 Teacher date of birth: 23 July 1991 TRA reference: 0021261 Date of determination: 16 October 2023 Former employer: Hills Road Sixth Form College, Cambridge Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 16 October 2023 by virtual means to consider the case of Mr Jeffrey Wilson. The pane l members were Mr Cl ive Ruddle (lay p anellist – in the chair), Mrs Aisha Miller (teacher panellist), and Mrs Kar en Graham (teacher pan ellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Pr iyesh Dave of Eversheds S utherland (International) 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 Jeffrey Wilson that the al legation(s) be considered without a hearing. Mr Wilson 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 Ms Clare Hastie of Kingsley Napley LLP, or Mr Wilson. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of meeting dated 16 October 2023. It was alleged that Mr Wilson was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: Mr Wilson was convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 1. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 12/02/22 Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a) 2. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 12/02/22 Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a) 3. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 12/02/22 Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a) 4. Voyeurism - record a person doing a private act on 22/02/19 - 25/02/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67 (3) 5. Voyeurism - record a person doing a private act on 22/02/19 - 25/02/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67 (3) 6. Voyeurism - record a person doing a private act on 20/07/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67 (3) 7. Without consent/reasonable belief in consent record image under clothing to observe another on 13/04/19 - 31/07/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67A (2) +s.67A (4) 8. Without consent/reasonable belief in consent record image under clothing to observe another on 01/09/19 - 12/02/22 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67A (2) +s.67A (4) Mr Wilson admitted both the alleged facts and that it amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications Application to amend allegations 1. An application has been made by the TRA to amend the Notice of Meeting by amending allegation 6’s date of act from “27/07/19” to “20/07/19”. This application has been made so that the allegation correctly follows the date on the certificate of conviction. 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.5 2. Before making an amendment, the panel must consider any representations by the presenting officer and the teacher. However, no parties are in attendance for this meeting. The teacher has been contacted and agreed to the amendment of the allegation and the statement of facts. 3. The panel considered that the amendment proposed being a correction of a typographical error does not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. There is no prospect of the case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore, no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher or the TRA. The panel, therefore, decided to amend the allegation as proposed. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and Anonymised Individual List – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Referral, Response and Notice of Meeting – pages 6 to 31 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 33 to 37 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 39 to 125 The panel made note of Mr Wilson’s amendment to the Statement of Agreed Facts. 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 Wilson on 3 September 2023 and as amended on 15 October 2023. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Wilson for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the 6 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. Mr Wilson had been employed at Hills Road Sixth Form College (the “School”) since August 2019 as a teacher. Mr Wilson ceased to be a teacher at the School on 31 July 2022. In or around February 2022, Mr Wilson was arrested. On 30 July 2022, Mr Wilson plead guilty. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: You were convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 1. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 12/02/22 Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a) 2. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 12/02/22 Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a) 3. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 12/02/22 Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a) 4. Voyeurism - record a person doing a private act on 22/02/19 - 25/02/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67 (3) 5. Voyeurism - record a person doing a private act on 22/02/19 - 25/02/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67 (3) 6. Voyeurism - record a person doing a private act on 20/07/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67 (3) 7. Without consent/reasonable belief in consent record image under clothing to observe another on 13/04/19 - 31/07/19 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67A (2) +s.67A (4) 8. Without consent/reasonable belief in consent record image under clothing to observe another on 01/09/19 - 12/02/22 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.67A (2) +s.67A (4) The panel has seen a certificate of conviction confirming that you were convicted as alleged. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. 7 You were sentenced to a total custodial period of 12 months. You were also ordered to register with the police for 10 years and were subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years. After an intelligence operation, the police became aware of your home address and the IP address of your phone connected with indecent photographs and images of children. For the possession of indecent photographs of children convictions, the police found 90 instances of media falling within Class A, 185 pieces of media within Class B, and 52,546 pieces of media within Class C. You also filmed an adult family friend via a nanny camera without her knowledge related to the voyeurism convictions. The final convictions related to section 67A voyeurism, otherwise known as ‘upskirting’. These images of students and teachers were taken during your employment at both Thomas Clarkson school and the School. You pled guilty to the offences. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Wilson, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Wilson 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 o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others 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 most of the individual’s convictions were not related to teaching; the convictions of allegations 7 and 8 were within two schools and working in an education setting. These include taking images of pupils and teachers. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence: 8 were contrary to the standards of personal and professional conduct expected of a teacher, with reference to the Teachers’ Standards; were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting; would be likely to have an impact on the safety or security of pupils or members of the public; or would be likely to