Mr John Dadds

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 John Dadds

Teacher reference number: 9740799

Teacher's date of birth: 12 October 1958

Location teacher worked: Weymouth, south west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 October 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 John Dadds formerly employed in Weymouth, south west England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton Road

Coventry

CV1 2WT

Email misconduct.teacher@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr John Dadds: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 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 John Dadds Teacher ref number: 9740799 Teacher date of birth: 12 October 1958 TRA reference: 18587 Date of determination: 10 October 2022 Former employer: The Compass Learning Centre (PRU), Weymouth Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 27 and 28 June and on 4, 6 and 10 October 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr John Dadds. The panel members were Mr Diarmuid Bunting (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist) and Ms Fiona Angel (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Dadds was present and was represented by Ms Denise Robinson of NASUWT. 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 6 April 2022. It was alleged that Mr Dadds was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher of ICT and geography at the Compass Learning Centre on or around 2 May 2019, he: 1. Inappropriately handled Pupil A during an ICT lesson; and 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at allegation 1 above was despite previous advice given to him by senior staff members regarding appropriate contact with pupils. Mr Dadds denied the allegations. Preliminary applications 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. Application to admit additional documents At the outset of the hearing, the panel considered a preliminary application for the admission of additional documents. The documents were: • A table prepared my Mr Dadds setting out a list of discrepancies between the version of the disciplinary meeting minutes included in the TRA’s section of the bundle and the version included in the teacher’s section of the bundle. • An un-redacted copy of page 261 of the hearing bundle. Mr Dadds objected to this page being redacted and wanted the panel to consider the page without redactions. 5 The panel heard representations from the presenting officer and teacher’s representative in respect of the application. The presenting officer did not object to the documents being admitted. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of April 2018 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the April 2018 Procedures. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle at pages 402 to 403 and 404. The hearing was adjourned on 28 June 2022 and reconvened on 4 October 2022. During the adjournment Mr Dadds provided an updated version of the table he had prepared setting out a list of discrepancies in respect of the disciplinary meeting minutes. The presenting officer did not object to this document. The panel considered this in place of the table previously provided. At the point of the adjournment on 28 June 2022, the TRA had concluded its evidence in respect of this matter. Mr Dadds was to begin his evidence on 4 October 2022. Although Mr Dadds was represented by Ms Robinson, he requested that he be permitted to read out a statement he had prepared and to show CCTV footage of the incident to which this matter relates. The presenting officer did not object to this proposal. Mr Dadds provided the panel and presenting officer with a copy of the statement he had prepared. The panel noted that this was not in accordance with normal procedure and acknowledged that a statement prepared during an adjournment and not served in accordance with the April 2018 Procedures could result in unfairness and/or prejudice. However, the panel decided to exercise its discretion on this occasion to allow Mr Dadds to give evidence in this manner. The panel did not consider that, in the context of this matter and given the content of the statement, Mr Dadds’ proposal would result in unfairness or prejudice to the TRA. Mr Dadds’ written statement was adduced as evidence as part of these proceedings. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of proceedings – pages 6 to 16 • Section 2: Witness statements – pages 18 to 48 6 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 50 to 257 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 259 to 401 • CCTV evidence – provided separately In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • A table prepared by Mr Dadds setting out a list of discrepancies between the version of the disciplinary meeting minutes included in the TRA’s section of the bundle and the version included in the Teacher’s section of the bundle (and an updated version of this table). • An un-redacted copy of page 261 of the hearing bundle. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Individual A Mr Dadds gave 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 Dadds was employed by The Compass Learning Centre (a pupil referral unit) (‘the School’), as a teacher of ICT and geography from 1 September 2013. On 2 May 2019, whilst Mr Dadds was teaching an ICT lesson an incident occurred with Pupil A, which resulted in Mr Dadds seeking to physically restrain Pupil A. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Inappropriately handled Pupil A during an ICT lesson; 7 The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Dadds and from Individual A. The panel also viewed CCTV footage of the incident. Individual A explained that Pupil A had joined the School in [redacted] from his previous school. At the time of the incident the School was in the early stages of creating an individual student education, behaviour, care and health plan for Pupil A (“the Plan”). Individual A’s evidence was that such plans are implemented after three serious behavioural incidents. Mr Dadds was teaching an ICT lesson to a [redacted] class (which included Pupil A) on 2 May 2019. He was experiencing some issues with his IT equipment and allowed the pupils to play on computer games until he was ready to start the planned lesson. When Mr Dadds was ready to commence the lesson, he used some software to block the computer games, causing Pupil A to react in a negative manner. As a result of this, Pupil A was going to leave the classroom. Before he left the classroom Mr Dadds warned him about the loss of rewards and sanctions as a result of his behaviour. Individual A’s evidence was that this warning was inappropriate and triggered the events that then unfolded. The Plan stated that staff members should avoid reminding Pupil A of consequences. Mr Dadds accepted that he was aware of this but explained that he taught this class four times a week and was familiar with the pupils. He said that the pupils in the class had a strong sense of injustice and he felt that, if Pupil A were allowed to leave the classroom and work elsewhere without consequences, the other pupils would perceive Pupil A as having been rewarded for his bad behaviour. Following this exchange, Pupil A became visibly angry and frustrated. Mr Dadds told the panel that Pupil A said he was going to “smash up” Mr Dadds’ laptop, or words to that effect. The CCTV footage clearly showed Pupil A approaching Mr Dadds in an angry and aggressive manner. Mr Dadds was initially standing in front of the laptop trying to protect it, with an open stance. The CCTV footage showed Pupil A pushing Mr Dadds’ laptop along a desk. Mr Dadds told the panel that he conducted a dynamic risk assessment and was concerned that Pupil A would attempt to damage or throw his laptop thus injuring another pupil or staff member. Following his risk assessment, Mr Dadds attempted to use a “Team Teach” hold on Pupil A, known as a “T Wrap”. Mr Dadds’ evidence was that unfortunately and unintentionally it did not work; the