Mr Joshua Brandon Lewis

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 Joshua Brandon Lewis

Teacher reference number: 1669290

Teacher's date of birth: 1 January 1994

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 20 February and 21 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 Joshua Brandon Lewis formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 20 February and 21 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 Joshua Brandon Lewis: 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 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Joshua Brandon Lewis (“Mr Lewis” or “teacher”) Teacher ref number: 1669290 Teacher date of birth: 01/01/1994 TRA reference: 17348 Date of determination: 21 February 2020 Former employer: Carlton-le-Willows Academy, Nottingham (the “school”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 20 and 21 February 2020 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Joshua Brandon Lewis. The panel members were Ms Jean Carter (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Brian Hawkins (teacher panellist) and Mr Roger Woods (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Tomos Jones of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Phillip Dayle of No5 Chambers. Mr Joshua Brandon Lewis 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 24 December 2019. It was alleged that Mr Joshua Brandon Lewis was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst a teacher at Carlton le Willows Academy: 1. On or about 6 December 2017 (a) Mr Lewis said to Pupil A that she had “nice breasts” or words to this effect; (b) Mr Lewis said to Pupil B, who had described a drawing as looking like her friend’s vagina, “if your vagina looks like that you’ve got a problem” or words to this effect; 2. On or about 21 March 2018 (a) Mr Lewis placed his foot above Pupil C’s head; (b) Mr Lewis dragged Pupil D along the floor; 3. On various dates between 7 September 2017 and 25 May 2018 (a) Mr Lewis pretended to hit one or more pupils with a metre ruler; (b) Mr Lewis tapped one or more pupils on the back of their heads with a metre ruler; (c) Mr Lewis made contact with a pupil’s chest with a metre ruler; (d) Mr Lewis shot staples from a staple gun at one or more pupils; (e) Mr Lewis pretended to shoot staples from a staple gun at one or more pupils; (f) Mr Lewis placed one or more pupils in a headlock; (g) Mr Lewis twisted the arm of one or more pupils; (h) having spread glue on it, Mr Lewis stuck a sheet of paper to the side of a pupil’s face; (i) Mr Lewis pulled chairs from beneath one or more pupils causing them to fall to the ground; (j) Mr Lewis kicked a chair causing the pupil to fall to the ground; 5 (k) Mr Lewis threw a white board pen at one or more pupils; (l) Mr Lewis made derogatory remarks towards one or more pupils such as “blockhead” and “retard”; (m) Mr Lewis used abusive language towards one or more pupils, using terms such as “twat” and “prick”; 4. Mr Lewis’ conduct as set out in paragraph 1 was sexually motivated; 5. By Mr Lewis’ conduct as set out in the foregoing paragraphs, Mr Lewis failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position. Preliminary applications Firstly, the panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Lewis. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 (1) a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel was satisfied that the TRA had sent the Notice of Proceedings to an email address that Mr Lewis had previously responded to and that a hard-copy version had been sent to Mr Lewis’ last home address at least eight weeks before the hearing date. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. Accordingly, the panel determined to exercise its discretion under Paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was a severely constrained one. The panel also took into account the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel also had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending the hearing. 6 The panel had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel also noted that a witness was present and was ready to give evidence and would be inconvenienced if the hearing was rescheduled. The panel exercised vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel had regard to the seriousness of the case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and accepted that fairness to the teacher was of prime importance. However, it considered that, in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as was possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in the hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of the hearing taking place on the date set out in the Notice of Proceedings. For the above reasons, the panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Lewis. The presenting officer applied to admit a short, supplemental bundle into evidence. The supplemental bundle contained an ‘audit trail’ regarding the service of the Notice of Proceedings by the TRA on Mr Lewis (the “Supplemental Bundle”). The Supplemental Bundle was not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether it should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer to the admission of the Supplemental Bundle. The panel exercised caution in exercising its discretion given that it had determined to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that the Supplemental Bundle was relevant to the case as it confirmed that the TRA had sent the Notice of Proceedings to the teacher at least eight weeks before the hearing date, thereby confirming that the TRA had complied with paragraph 4.11 of the Procedures. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the Supplemental Bundle into evidence. The Supplemental Bundle had already been paginated as s1 to s23. 7 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 2 Section 2: Notice of Hearing – pages 3 to 6 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 7 to 18 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 194 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A, the school’s former [REDACTED]. Witness A was called to give evidence by the presenting officer. 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 Lewis had been employed at the school since 1 September 2017 as a newly qualified mathematics teacher. On or around 6 December 2017, concerns were raised regarding Mr Lewis making inappropriate comments to female students. It is alleged that Mr Lewis said to Pupil A that she had “nice breasts” or words to this effect. It was further alleged that Mr Lewis said to Pupil B, who had described a drawing as looking like her friend’s vagina, “if your vagina looks like that you’ve got a problem” or words to this effect. It is alleged that Mr Lewis’ conduct in this regard was sexually motivated. On or around 21 December 2017, Mr Lewis was put on an action plan which incorporated a continuing professional development plan (“CPD”), enhanced observations and mentoring. On or around 21 March 2018, further concerns were raised regarding Mr Lewis’ conduct towards two male students following an incident that allegedly took place in Mr Lewis’ classroom. As the school’s then investigating officer, Witness A conducted a formal investigation into the incident and a formal investigation report was produced by Witness A on 2 May 2018. 8 Following the conclusion of Witness A’s disciplinary investigation, Mr Lewis received a first written