Mr Joseph O’Brien

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Joseph O’Brien

Teacher reference number: 1665469

Teacher's date of birth: 5 June 1993

Location teacher worked: Cambridge, east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 to 27 February 2020

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 O’Brien, formerly employed in Cambridge, east England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 25 to 27 February 2020

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 O'Brien: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2020 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 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 Joseph O'Brien Teacher ref number: 1665469 Teacher date of birth: 5 June 1993 TRA reference: 18101 Date of determination: 27 February 2020 Former employer: Gretton School, Cambridge Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 to 27 February 2020 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Joseph O'Brien. The panel members were William Brown OBE (lay panellist – in the chair), Professor Roger Woods (former teacher panellist) and Ms Alison Walsh (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nick Leale of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Sarah Allen of counsel, instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP. Mr O'Brien was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 26 November 2019. It was alleged that Mr O'Brien was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst working as a teacher at Gretton School: 1. In or around May 2017, he made an unauthorised home visit to Pupil A's home; 2. On or around 16 November 2017, he accompanied Pupil A alone on a walk off- site; 3. On or about 20 November 2017, he accompanied Pupil B alone on a walk-off site for approximately 15 minutes; 4. In or around July 2018, he attended at the school smelling of alcohol on at least one occasion; 5. In or around October 2018, he attended at the school smelling of alcohol on at least two occasions; 6. In or around October 2018, he offered to take Pupil A for a walk and to tell him "a secret"; 7. On or about October 2018, during a staff briefing, in dealing with Witness E, a member of the school's management, he: a. Raised his voice to her; b. Responded to her in an aggressive manner; c. Swore at her, using words to the effect of "what's the fucking point of STL if, when I send an email…"; 8. On or around 8 October 2018, he told a colleague that Witness E could "fuck off", or words to similar effect; 9. By his conduct as set out in the following paragraphs, he failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher's professional position; a. Paragraph 1; b. Paragraph 2; c. Paragraph 3; 5 d. Paragraph 6; 10. By his conduct as set out in the following paragraphs, he failed to maintain high standards of behaviour; a. Paragraph 4; b. Paragraph 5; c. Paragraph 7; d. Paragraph 8. There were no admissions made by Mr O'Brien, other than an acceptance in an email written by him to the TRA on 24 February 2020 that he did smell of alcohol on the occasions alleged. Other than his acceptance of these facts (allegations 4 and 5), all matters were disputed. Preliminary applications Mr O'Brien did not attend the hearing. The presenting officer made an application for the hearing to proceed in Mr O'Brien's absence. Mr O'Brien had not previously responded to the Notice of Proceedings, or prior to 24 February 2020, put forward any written observations in relation to the allegations made against him. On 24 February, Mr O'Brien emailed the TRA asking that the hearing be postponed as a family member had been taken ill. No further details were provided other than that the prognosis for his family member was "not positive". In a subsequent email on the same day (prior to any decision being made to proceed in his absence), he confirmed that it would be his intention to attend any rescheduled hearing. However, in anticipation that the hearing would proceed, he provided a 4 page statement outlining his position in relation to the allegations made against him. The panel allowed the TRA's application to proceed in absence. The panel concluded that they were not confident, given his earlier lack of written communication with the TRA about his case, that Mr O'Brien would attend any rescheduled hearing. The panel noted that no supporting evidence had been provided in relation to Mr O'Brien's family member's illness and why this prevented Mr O'Brien from attending the hearing. Furthermore, the panel were in possession of Mr O'Brien's statement and were therefore satisfied that the disadvantage to Mr O'Brien in the hearing going ahead in his absence was limited. The panel further noted that a number of witnesses were present at the hearing ready to provide live evidence. 6 While exercising the utmost care and caution before concluding that it would be fair and just to proceed in Mr O'Brien's absence, the panel concluded that the lack of information in support of the reason put forward for his absence, his lack of substantial communication with the TRA about the case against him prior to 24 February 2020 and the receipt of a statement from him on 24 February, enabled the hearing to properly and fairly go ahead in Mr O'Brien's absence. Mr O'Brien was then advised by email that the hearing was to proceed in his absence. No response was received. Mr O'Brien's emails of 24 February 2020 and his witness statement as referred to above, were added to the hearing bundle at pages 298 to 304. During the course of the hearing the panel agreed to remove the word "off-site" from factual particular 3 and admit the signed statement of Witness F (with associated exhibits). The panel considered these matters to be non-prejudicial to Mr O'Brien's position. Witness F's statement and exhibits were added to the bundle as pages 305 to 314. The presenting officer had sent these documents to Mr O'Brien and expressed her intention to apply for them to be added to the hearing bundle. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, Identification key and list of roles – pages 1 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Hearing – pages 5 to 12 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 13 to 40 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 41 to 297 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. The details of all added documents are outlined above. Witnesses The panel heard live evidence from: 1. Witness A – [redacted] 2. Witness B – [redacted] 7 3. Witness C– [redacted] 4. Witness D – [redacted] 5. Witness E – [redacted] 6. Witness F – [redacted] (by Skype). Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. This case concerned an unqualified English teacher and form tutor who was employed at Gretton School in Cambridge (“the School”). The School is an independent special school for pupils aged 5 to 19 who have a diagnosis of autism or Asperger's syndrome. Some of the pupils board at the school. Mr O'Brien was accused of abusive and aggressive behaviour towards his colleagues, attending school smelling of alcohol and conducting some of his personal contact with pupils in a way that failed to observe proper professional boundaries, in that he made an unauthorised home visit to a pupil's home and took pupils for walks alone, both on and off the school site, when it was not appropriate for him to do so. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 2. On or around 16 November 2017, you accompanied Pupil A alone on a walk off-site; Mr O'Brien admitted, in his statement at page 302 of the bundle, that he accompanied Pupil A on an off-site walk. It is further confirmed by him at page 252 of the bundle, which is the transcript of Mr O'Brien's appeal hearing. The incident was also reported in the log of concerns, found at page 77 of the bundle. This incident was clearly thought of as abnormal and not acceptable practice at the School, hence it being recorded in the log of concerns. 3. On or about 20 November 2017, you accompanied Pupil B alone on a walk for approximately 15 minutes; 8 The panel found Witness D's oral evidence compelling in relation to this incident. That evidence was supported by the entry in the log of concerns that appeared at pages 92-93 of the bundle. This clearly confirmed that Mr O'Brien went outside with Pupil B and refused a chaperone, despite colleagues offering to accompany him with Pupil B outside the boarding house. His insistence that he spent time with Pupil B alone refusing to explain why, was clearly considered to be an abnormal event, hence the recording of it in the log of concerns. 4. In or around July 2018, you attended at the school smelling of alcohol on at least one occasion; 5. In or around October 2018, you attended at the school smelling of alcohol on at least two occasions; A number of witnesses provided evidence of these events both in their statements and in live evidence. This included the oral evidence of Witness F. In addition, Mr O'Brien admitted these allegations by way of his email dated 24 February 2020 (2.58pm) and in his statement (page 302 of the bundle). 7. On or about October 2018, during a staff briefing, in dealing with Witness E, a member of the school's management, you: a