Mr Jonathan Sinfield

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 Jonathan Sinfield

Teacher reference number: 1569919

Teacher's date of birth: 11 July 1992

Location teacher worked: Bristol, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 April 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 Jonathan Sinfield formerly employed in Bristol, South West 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 Jonathan Sinfield: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Statement of agreed facts 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 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: Mr Jonathan Sinfield Teacher ref number: 1569919 Teacher date of birth: 11 July 1992 TRA reference: 20562 Date of determination: 30 April 2024 Former employer: Wellsway School, Bristol Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 30 April 2024 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Jonathan Sinfield. The panel members were Ms Hannah Fellows (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Cathy Logan (teacher panellist) and Mr Dara Islam (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts 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 Sinfield that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Sinfield 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, Mr Sinfield or any representative for Mr Sinfield. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 21 March 2024. As outlined below, the panel noted differences between the allegations in the notice of meeting and the allegations in the statement of agreed facts and decided to amend the allegations. The amended allegations are as set out below. It was alleged that Mr Sinfield was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that, he was convicted of the following; 1. Offence 1: Wound / inflict grievous bodily harm without intent on 27/10/20. Offences against the person act 1861 s.20 Court/Date: Bristol Crown Court. 24 June 2022. Disposal: Imprisonment 3 years. Victim surcharge 2. Offence 2: Assault of a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm on 27/10/20. Offences against the person act 1861 s.47 Court/Date: Bristol Crown Court. 24 June 2022. Disposal: No separate penalty Mr Sinfield admitted the particulars of allegations 1 and 2 and that his behaviour amounted to the conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Sinfield on the 15 January 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on the 15 February 2024. Preliminary applications The panel heard legal advice on proceeding with a professional conduct panel meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Sinfield or any representative on behalf of Mr Sinfield. The panel noted that the TRA had agreed to a request from Mr Sinfield for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel therefore concluded that it was appropriate to proceed in the circumstances taking into account Mr Sinfield’s admission of the allegations, request for such a meeting and the interests of justice or public interest in proceeding. Notice of meeting The notice of meeting had not been sent to Mr Sinfield 10 weeks before the hearing. However, the panel noted an email from Mr Sinfield in which he agreed to waive the 10 week notice period under paragraph 5.23 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel was therefore content that it could proceed with the professional conduct panel meeting. 5 Application to amend allegations The panel noted that the allegations as set out in the notice of meeting did not match those in the statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Sinfield on 15 January 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 15 February 2024 or the certificate of conviction. The allegations in the statement of agreed facts read as follows: You have been convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 1. Wound / inflict grievous bodily harm without intent 2. Assault of a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm The allegations in the notice of meeting dated 21 March 2024, read as follows: You have been convicted at any time, of the following relevant offences: Offence 1: Wounding / inflicting grievous bodily harm on 27/10/20. Offences against the person act 1861 s.20 Court/Date: Bristol Crown Court. 24 June 2022. Disposal. Imprisonment 3 years. Victim surcharge 190.00 Offence 2: Assault occasioning actual bodily harm on 27/10/20. Offences against the person act 1861 s.47 Court/Date: Bristol Crown Court. 24 June 2022. Disposal: No separate penalty The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures and decided to consider whether the amend the allegations in light of the different wording in the statement of agreed facts and notice of meeting. The panel considered that the differences between the two sets of allegations did not change the nature and scope of the allegations. The allegations were still within the same parameters. As such, the panel considered that amending the allegations would not amount to a material change to the allegations. The panel decided to proceed to amend the allegations to reflect the first part of the allegations as set out in the notice of meeting. The panel noted that teacher and presenting officer had not been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations. However, the changes proposed were in line with the agreed statement of facts which was signed by both the teacher and presenting officer. 6 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 exercised its ability to amend the allegations and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 7 to 20 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 21 to 23 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 24 to 158 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 159 to 172 In addition, the panel received the following: • Determination of case without a hearing – request pro forma – pages 173 to 174 • Notice of meeting – pages 175 to 176 • Email confirming waiver of 10 weeks’ notice period – page 177 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, and the additional documents received in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Sinfield on 15 January 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 15 February 2024. 7 Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Sinfield for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the 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. On the 1 August 2015, Mr Sinfield commenced employment as a teacher at Wellsway School (‘the School’). In October 2020, Mr Sinfield was absent from work after [REDACTED] was taken to hospital. On the 28 October 2020, Mr Sinfield was arrested for grievous bodily harm in respect of [REDACTED]. He was interviewed by the police, denied that he acted with intent and was released under investigation. On the 30 October 2020, a LADO managing allegation strategy meeting was held. On the 2 June 2021, a [REDACTED] was held in respect of [REDACTED]. On the 6 September 2021, a LADO managing allegation strategy meeting was held. On the 29 October 2021, the findings from the [REDACTED] were released to the School. On the 11 November 2021, Mr Sinfield was charged with grievous bodily harm. On the 15 November 2021, Mr Sinfield was notified that the School would be commencing a disciplinary investigation. On the 26 November 2021, Mr Sinfield attended an investigatory interview. On the 11 January 2022, a disciplinary hearing was held, which Mr Sinfield attended. On the 12 January 2022, Mr Sinfield was notified of the outcome of the disciplinary hearing and ceased working at the School. On the 22 March 2022, Mr Sinfield was convicted at Bristol Crown Court of wound/inflict grievous bodily harm without intent, and of assault a person thereby occasioning them actual bodily harm. On the 24 June 2022, Mr Sinfield was sentenced at Bristol Crown Court to 3 years imprisonment. 8 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the amended allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Offence 1: Wound / inflict grievous bodily harm without intent on 27/10/20. Offences against the person act 1861 s.20 Court/Date: Bristol Crown Court. 2