Mr Karl Huber

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 Karl Huber

Teacher reference number: 0674191

Teacher's date of birth: 19 April 1983

Location teacher worked: Nottinghamshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 February to 25 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 Karl Huber formerly employed in Nottinghamshire, East Midlands.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 24 February to 25 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 Karl Huber: 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 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Karl Huber Teacher ref number: 0674191 Teacher date of birth: 19 April 1983 TRA reference: 18243 Date of determination: 25 February 2020 Former employer: Ashfield School, Nottinghamshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 February to 25 February 2020 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Karl Huber. The panel members were Mr John Matharu (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist) and Ms Ann Walker (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Claire Watson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Sherelle Appleby of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Karl Huber was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, except for parts of the hearing that were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of proceedings dated 18 December 2019. It was alleged that Mr Karl Huber was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as Head of Music at Ashfield School between 1 September 2012 to 28 February 2019 he: 1. Failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, namely by; a. Providing her with his personal telephone number; b. Corresponding with her through; i. Private email; ii. WhatsApp; iii. A typed letter; iv. A handwritten letter; v. His school email accounts when he was emailing in relation to non- school related and/or personal matters; c. Encouraging her to falsify his name in her contacts to disguise his identity; d. Sending her a birthday card containing £40; e. Offering to take her to London to see a show. 2. Engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Pupil A, namely by; a. Persistently contacting her when she was not responding to his messages; b. Attempting to emotionally coerce her into providing a response; c. Asking others to encourage a response from her. 3. In behaving as may be found proven at 1a-1e and/or 2a-2c above, he was pursuing and/or attempting to pursue a relationship with Pupil A which he knew or ought to have known was an abuse of his position of trust as a teacher. Mr Huber admitted the facts of the allegations and that these amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that brings the profession into disrepute. 5 Preliminary applications Admissibility of late documents At the outset of the hearing, the presenting officer applied to admit the witness statement of the Designated Safeguarding Lead at the School and, on behalf of the teacher, a letter addressed to the panel and signed by Mr Huber. Those documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents 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 and that no objections were raised by the teacher to the admissibility of the documents. 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 both documents were relevant to the case, as one was the witness statement of a teacher to whom Pupil A had spoken about Mr Huber’s actions and the other document was written by Mr Huber himself in response to the allegations. In relation to the witness statement of the Designated Safeguarding Lead, the central question for the panel was whether it was fair in the circumstances to allow evidence to be put forward by the Presenting Officer without the opportunity for the witness to be cross-examined by the teacher. The panel took account of the efforts made to secure the attendance of the witness and concluded that no efforts had been made to secure the attendance of the witness and the witness statement was sought at a very late stage. In the circumstances, given that insufficient efforts had been made to secure the attendance of the witness and the seriousness of the allegations in this case, the panel concluded that the right to a fair hearing entitled the teacher to have the opportunity to cross-examine the witness. With regard to the overall question of fairness, the panel considered that it would not be fair to admit the witness statement of the Designated Safeguarding Lead as it was drafted at a late stage without reasonable explanation and was provided to the teacher less than one working day before the start of the hearing. The panel was concerned that the document had been prepared at such a late stage of the proceedings and had only been prepared in the absence of a signed copy of an agreed statement of facts at the time and in response to the teacher’s intention to attend the hearing. In relation to the letter from Mr Huber, the panel considered that it was fair to admit the evidence. The panel noted that there was a distinction to be drawn between the presenting officer’s seeking to rely upon hearsay evidence and the teacher’s seeking to introduce a statement on which he could be questioned. The panel was satisfied that Mr Huber had provided a reasonable explanation for the late admission of the document and 6 that the presenting officer had had sufficient time to review the document in advance of the hearing. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the letter from Mr Huber. However, the panel decided not to admit the other document. Amending the allegations The panel considered whether to amend the word “including” in the stem of allegations 1 and 2 to “namely” or “specifically”, or whether the allegations had been sufficiently particularised in advance of the hearing for the teacher to be able to address matters pertaining to the stem of the allegation but which were not specifically set out in sub- allegations 1a to 1e and 2a to 2c. The panel took into account representations from the presenting officer that the allegations were specifically as listed and that there were no further allegations. The panel also took into account acknowledgment from the teacher that he had understood the allegations to be as specifically listed. The panel decided to exercise its power under paragraph 4.56 of the Procedures to amend the allegation to replace the word “including” with “namely”. The panel considered that the amendment provided clarity and did not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations as understood by both parties. There was no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness of prejudice caused to the teacher. Excluding the public The panel considered an application from Mr Huber that part of the hearing should be held in private. The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This followed a request from the teacher that part of the hearing should be in private. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request for part of the hearing to be heard in private was a reasonable one, given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health being placed in the public domain. The panel considered whether 7 there were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s health. The panel noted that any departure from the general rule had to be no greater than the extent reasonably necessary and that interference for a limited period of the hearing was preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel therefore, considered whether there were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s health, and considered that to the extent it became necessary during the course of the hearing to discuss such matters, the panel could consider at that stage whether to exclude the public from that portion of the hearing only. The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request ran contrary to the public interest. The panel was required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional c