Mr Jeremy Tucker

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 Jeremy Tucker

Teacher reference number: 7944477

Teacher's date of birth: 16 May 1958

Location teacher worked: Lincoln, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 31 October 2022 to 02 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 Jeremy Tucker, formerly employed in Lincoln, East Midlands.

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 Jeremy Tucker: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Jeremy Tucker Teacher ref number: 7944477 Teacher date of birth: 16 May 1958 TRA reference: 18546 Date of determination: 2 November 2022 Former employer: Acorn Free School, Lincoln Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 31 October to 2 November 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Jeremy Tucker. The panel members were Ms Fiona McLaren (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist) and Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Sam Haldane of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Tucker was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 2 September 2022. It was alleged that Mr Tucker was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He engaged in unprofessional behaviour including by; a) on one or more occasions attending the School whilst he was under the influence of alcohol and/or smelt of alcohol; b) making one or more inappropriate comments towards and/or in the presence of pupils, specifically; i. on or around 4th October 2018, stating “hey miss, you’ve got big tits and I’d love to suck on them” or using words to that effect; ii. stating “still good looking” or using words to that effect; iii. in or around September/October 2018 stating “stop being an arsehole” or using words to that effect; iv. in or around September/October 2018 stating that a female pupil had a smaller ‘arsehole’; v. stating “I’m going to knock your head off and shit down your throat” or using words to that effect; vi. by calling pupils idiots and/or mocking pupils; 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at allegation 1(b)(i) and/or 1(b)(ii) above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motived; 3. He placed one or more pupils at increased risk of injury and/or harm, including by; a) kicking and/or flipping tables in the presence of one or more pupils; b) sending pupils to the food technology room and/or mechanical engineering room without adequate supervision; c) driving a vehicle with one or more pupils as passengers after consuming alcohol; 4. He employed an individual on behalf of the School without following the recruitment procedure and/or ensuring that the individual was DBS checked. 5 Mr Tucker made no admission of fact. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Tucker was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Tucker. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Tucker in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr Tucker’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Tucker had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and chose to send in written submissions. The panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Tucker was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Tucker was neither present nor represented. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents. The presenting officer’s documents were emails between the presenting officer and the teacher’s representative. The teacher’s documents were a response bundle to the allegations. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the 2018 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was 6 required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from Mr Tucker and the Presenting Officer that part of the hearing relating to his health, his personal relationships and the health of Witness C should be heard in private. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. The presenting officer did not have an objection to the application. The panel granted the application. The panel considered it was not contrary to the public interest for the part of the hearing, which was the subject of the application, to be heard in private. Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegations as follows: • In regards to allegation 3(a), the Presenting Officer acknowledged that the evidence in regards to kicking tables is reliant upon the evidence within Ms Carol White’s investigation report of 6 March 2019. No live witnesses were being called to support the allegation that Mr Tucker kicked tables and therefore the Presenting Officer invited the Panel to amend the allegation to remove the reference to kicking tables from the allegation. • In regards to allegation 3(b), the Presenting Officer relied upon the evidence of Witness B and Witness D, both of whom were being called to give oral evidence during the course of the hearing on behalf of the TRA. The Presenting Officer invited the panel to clarify allegation 3(b), by way of removing the reference to sending pupils to the respective rooms in exchange for allowing and/or leaving pupils in the classrooms. The panel noted that Mr Tucker had been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations and he did not object to the changes. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the 2018 Procedures. 7 The panel considered that the proposed amendments would not change the nature and scope of the allegations in that the allegations would be considered upon the same evidence. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. The panel also took into account the fact the teacher did not object to the changes. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. Accordingly, the panel did grant this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 (the ‘April 2018 Procedures’) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. 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 – pages 5 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 19 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 55 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 57 to 125 • Section 5: Teacher documents – none provided In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: - Email between presenting officer and teacher’s representative 8 - Response bundle from Mr Tucker The panel members confirmed that they had read all o