Mr Joseph Johnson

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 Joseph Johnson

Teacher reference number: 1556501

Teacher's date of birth: 10 May 1993

Location teacher worked: Liverpool, north west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 to 19 January 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 Joseph Johnson, formerly employed in Liverpool, north 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 Joseph Johnson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 7 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 10 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 30 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 34 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Joseph Johnson Teacher ref number: 1556501 Teacher date of birth: 10 May 1993 TRA reference: 18692 Date of determination: 19 January 2023 Former employer: The Belvedere Academy, Liverpool Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 17 to 19 January 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Joseph Johnson. The panel members were Ms Rosemary Joyce (teacher panellist - in the chair), Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist) and Ms Kelly Thomas (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Hubert of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks solicitors. Mr Johnson 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 7 November 2022. It was alleged that Mr Johnson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst a teacher at the Belvedere Academy (‘the School’): 1. On or about 17 December 2018, he: a) called a pupil a “twat”; b) used the word “bollocks” within earshot of Pupil A; and c) tickled Pupil A’s hips; 2. In or around April 2019, he told Pupil B and Pupil C that: a) if they were naughty he would take them up to “Ceiling Gary” and “he will lock you up”, or words to that effect; and b) if they were really naughty “Ceiling Gary” “will rape you”, or words to that effect; 3. In or around April 2019, he: a) kicked Pupil C’s chair, and then stated “I’m going to get you”; b) called Pupil C a “cretin”; c) he tried to throw food in Pupil C’s face, whilst he chased her round the classroom; d) Attempted to put food in Pupil C’s face using a kitchen knife; e) Made Pupil C clean up the classroom, during her lunch break; f) Used the School’s SIMS database to identify the address of Pupil C; and g) Stated to Pupil C “I’m going to come and watch you sleep”; 4. In or around May 2019, during a Year 8 lesson: a) he said words to the effect of “what’s the difference between a pie and a tart, tarts are topless”; and b) When asked by a pupil what a tart was, he responded with words to the effect of “a tart is a slapper, a slag and my favourite word a whore”; 5 5. In or around May 2019, whilst standing behind Pupil B, he whispered the word “whore”; 6. On an unknown date, he followed Pupil D around the classroom with a bag of tomato sauce, knowing that she was scared of tomato sauce; 7. On unknown dates, he referred to pupils as “little shits”; 8. On an unknown date, he said to Pupil E “What the fuck are you playing at?”; 9. On unknown dates, in the presence of Pupil E, he used the word: a) “cunt” b) “fuck”; 10. On an unknown date, he referred to Pupil E by prefacing her name with the word “Gonorrhoea”; 11. On an unknown date, he referred to Pupil F by prefacing her name with the words “Cross contamination”; 12. On an unknown date, he: a) Threw flour at Pupil B; b) tried to put his fingers in Pupil B’s mouth; c) when asked if his hands were clean, said “no I’ve been shoving them up my bum all day”, or words to that effect; and d) said, referring to Pupil B, “let’s find out and put [REDACTED] in the oven”, or words to the effect; 13. On an unknown date, he placed his finger in: a) Pupil F’s nose; and b) Pupil F’s mouth; 14. On an unknown date, he: a) Drew dots on Pupil F’s face with a whiteboard pen; and b) Placed a bucket on Pupil F’s head; 6 15. On an unknown date, he licked his hand and attempted to place it on pupils’ faces; 16. On an unknown date, he spoke to Pupil B using words to the effect of “I like to dress up as a paedophile”; 17. On an unknown date, in relation to a class trip you had attended, he described cows being “raped”; 18. On an unknown date, he told a story about the slaughter of a dog in which he included graphic detail about the dog being cut into pieces; 19. On an unknown date, he told a story about the sexual abuse of a young girl by her father, without any prior context; 20. On an unknown date, having placed guitar picks over his eyes, he used words to the effect of “I’m a dirty old man who can do things to little girls”; 21. On an unknown date, he told a sexually explicit story, about his friend eating jelly beans from his girlfriend’s vagina; 22. On an unknown date, he picked up Pupil L and carried her; 23. On an unknown date, he said to a class of year 8 pupils words to the effect of “girls this is one for you because it can make your boobs grow bigger”; 24. By his conduct in the following paragraphs, you failed to maintain high standards of behaviour: a) Paragraph 1(a); b) Paragraph 1(b); c) Paragraph 2; d) Paragraph 3; e) Paragraph 4; f) Paragraph 5; g) Paragraph 6; h) Paragraph 7; i) Paragraph 8; 7 j) Paragraph 9; k) Paragraph 16; l) Paragraph 17; m) Paragraph 18; n) Paragraph 19; and o) Paragraph 20; 25. By his conduct in the following paragraphs, you failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position: a) Paragraph 1(c); b) Paragraph 10; c) Paragraph 11; d) Paragraph 12; e) Paragraph 13; f) Paragraph 14; g) Paragraph 15; h) Paragraph 21; i) Paragraph 22; and j) Paragraph 23. Mr Johnson made no admission of fact. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Johnson was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Johnson. 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 8 case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel noted that there was no evidence of any attempts to contact Mr Johnson in the bundle. The presenting officer subsequently provided a supplementary bundle which included email correspondence between Capsticks solicitors and Mr Johnson. The correspondence included an email dated 13 December 2022 from Mr Johnson confirming that he did not intend on attending the hearing and that he was willing to receive the Notice of Proceedings via email. In an email dated 13 October 2022, Mr Johnson also confirmed that the address that he had previously provided was still his current address. This was the same address to which the Notice of Proceedings had been sent. Therefore, the panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Johnson in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr Johnson’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Johnson had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and 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 Johnson 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. The panel was mindful of the passage of time since the alleged incidents and the need for these proceedings to be dealt with expeditiously and efficiently. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that the teacher was neither present nor represented. Application to amend allegations 9 The presenting officer made an application to amend the wording of the allegations as follows: 1. Amending allegation 1a, by substituting the words “called Pupil A a twat” for the words “called a pupil a twat”; 2. Amending allegations 13 and 14, by replacing references to “Pupil G” with “Pupil F”; 3. Adding the word “failed” to the penultimate allegation, so that it reads “you failed to maintain high standards of behaviour”; 4. Removing one of the words “to” from the final allegation, so that it reads “you failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position”. The presenting officer also requested that the numbering of the allegations be corrected for the purpose of clarity. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendments would not change the nature and scope of the allegations in that the allegations would substantively remain the same. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. 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 Profe