Unknown Teacher

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 reference number:

9337687

Teacher's date of birth:

16 February 1971

Location teacher worked:

Grimsby, Yorkshire and Humber

Date of professional conduct panel:

4 April 2018

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 Kevin Cooper, formerly employed in Grimsby, Yorkshire and Humber.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on date 4 April 2018.

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 Kevin Cooper: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2018 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 E. Decision and reasons 7 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 Kevin Cooper Teacher ref number: 9337687 Teacher date of birth: 16 February 1971 TRA reference: 15444 Date of determination: 5 April 2018 Former employer: St James School, Grimsby A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 4 – 5 April 2018 at 53 – 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Kevin Cooper. The panel members were Ms Alison Feist (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist) and Mrs Alison Robb-Webb (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Surekha Gollapudi of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the Agency was Mr Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Cooper was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 30 January 2018. It was alleged that Mr Cooper was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. In or around 2016 he developed and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, including by: a. connecting and/or communicating with Pupil A via social media and/or text message b. attending a park with Pupil A c. in or around May 2016, sleeping in the same bed as Pupil A d. in or around May 2016, going to London with Pupil A e. visiting restaurants with Pupil A on one or more occasions f. in or around March 2016, visiting Pupil A in [redacted] on his own g. on or around 2 July 2016, going to [redacted] with Pupil A 2. His behaviour towards Pupil A as may be found proven at 1 above was sexually motivated. 3. He failed to comply with the terms of his suspension issued on 5 July 2016, in that: a. on or around 25 August 2016, he met with Individual X b. in or around October 2016, he met Pupil A on one or more occasions He has a conviction, at any time, of a relevant criminal offence in that: 4. He was convicted on 7 July 2015 for Assault on 22 May 2015 under the Criminal Justice Act 1988 s.39 and ordered to pay a fine of £400, costs of £85, a victim surcharge of £40 and the criminal courts charge of £150. Mr Cooper admitted the facts of allegation 1 and 3. However Mr Cooper denies that allegations 1.b., and 1.f. amount to an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A. In relation to allegation 3, Mr Cooper states that he did not agree the terms of his suspension. In relation to allegation 4, Mr Cooper denies that the offence should be considered as a relevant offence for the purpose of the Agency’s proceedings. Mr Cooper denies allegation 2 in its entirety. 5 Mr Cooper accepts that the admitted facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Cooper. The panel was satisfied that the Agency complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 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 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 has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel noted that the teacher responded to the Notice of Proceedings and indicated he would not attend. 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 is taking place. The panel 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 and the teacher confirmed he would not make an application to adjourn the hearing. 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 had the benefit of written representations made by the teacher and is able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel noted it is able to exercise 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 this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. However, it 6 considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; that on balance, these were serious allegations, and the public interest was in favour of this hearing continuing today. The panel saw evidence that the teacher requested that the school name be anonymised in the hearing. The panel noted that paragraph 4.60 of the Procedures allows the panel, if it considers it to be in the interests of justice, to decide that the name and identity of a school will not be disclosed during the hearing or at all. The panel has taken into account the general rule that matters pertaining to these hearings should be held in public and took account of case law that states: “It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially. It can result in evidence becoming available which would not become available if the proceedings were conducted behind closed doors or with one or more of the parties’ or witnesses’ identity concealed. It makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely”. The panel had regard to whether anonymity of the school was required. The panel also had regard to the principle that limited interference with the public nature of the proceedings is preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel has decided that, in the circumstances of this case, it is not appropriate to anonymise the name of the school. The panel considered that there were no compelling reasons provided by the teacher which would justify a departure from the general rule. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 1 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings, response and Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 5 to 19 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 20 to 305 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 306 to 309 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: 7 Teaching Regulation Agency application form – pages 310 to 319 Email correspondence with Mr Cooper – pages 320 to 322 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing, including those documents subsequently admitted. Witnesses The panel did not hear oral evidence. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: Mr Cooper had been employed at the school as a boarding house master and teacher of geography and information technology from September 2009. It is alleged that Mr Cooper developed an inappropriate relationship with a pupil at the school in 2016 which involved exchanging messages by phone and on social media, and meeting outside the school in a number of different settings. This included staying overnight in a hotel room together and visiting restaurants. It is alleged that this behaviour was sexually motivated. Following these allegations, Mr Cooper was suspended from the school in July 2016. It is alleged that Mr Cooper contacted both Pupil A and a colleague at the school, contrary to the terms of his suspension. It is further alleged that Mr Cooper has been convicted of a relevant criminal offence, namely assault. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. In or around 2016 you developed and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, including by: a. connecting and/or communicating with Pupil A via social media and/or text message This allegation was admitted by the teacher in the agreed statement of facts dated 26 January 2018. The panel went on to consider documentary evidence of Pupil A and Mr Cooper being “friends” on Facebook, and evidence of [redacted]. 8 The panel had