Mr Kevin Jones

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 Kevin Jones

Teacher reference number: 8942584

Teacher's date of birth: 28 December 1966

Location teacher worked: Rochdale, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 August 2024

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 Jones formerly employed in Rochdale, 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 Kevin Jones: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 - 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 - 9 Findings of fact 6 - 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 - 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 - 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Kevin Jones Teacher ref number: 8942584 Teacher date of birth: 28 December 1966 TRA reference: 21513 Date of determination: 22 August 2024 Former employer: Brownhill Learning Community, Rochdale Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 22 August 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Kevin Jones. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Anila Rai (lay panellist) and Mrs Georgina Bean (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Jones 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 7 June 2024. It was alleged that Mr Kevin Jones had been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 17 May 2022, he was convicted at Minshull Street Crown Court for one count of child cruelty on 14 February 2020, and 2. On or around 17 May 2022, he was convicted at Minshull Street Crown Court for one count of child cruelty on 21 February 2020. Mr Jones did not attend the hearing or respond to the Notice of Hearing. Accordingly, there were no admissions. Preliminary applications As to whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Jones The panel considered an application from Miss Riddy to proceed in the absence of Mr Jones. After hearing submissions from Miss Riddy and receiving legal advice, the Chair announced the following decision of the panel. The panel has determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Jones for the following reasons: • The Notice of Hearing was sent to Mr Jones in accordance with paragraph 5.23 of Teacher Misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020; • Mr Jones sent an email to the TRA on 1 May 2024 in which he said, “I do not wish to be present at the hearing. It is so long ago now that the incident happened, and it is too upsetting to go through again”; • The panel was also presented with confirmation that Mr Jones accessed the file containing the hearing bundle on 26 July 2024; • The panel was satisfied that Mr Jones had voluntarily waived his right to participate in the hearing; • Mr Jones has not sought an adjournment and there is no indication that an adjournment would result in his participation; • There was a public interest in these proceedings taking place reasonably promptly. 5 Application to amend allegation Ms Riddy made an application to remove allegation 2 and amend allegation 1 to read: ‘On or around 17 May 2022 you were convicted at Minshull Street Crown Court for one or more counts of child cruelty on 14 February 2020’. The panel noted that allegation 2 incorrectly referred to the second count of child cruelty as having taken place on 21 February 2020 rather than 14 February 2020. The purpose of the proposed amendment was to clarify that both offences were alleged to have taken place on 14 February 2020. After hearing submissions from Miss Riddy and receiving legal advice, the panel agreed that the amendment should be made. The panel was satisfied that the amendment to allegation 1 was to correct an obvious error as to the date on which the second offence was alleged to have occurred. The evidence in the bundle was consistent with both offences having been committed on the same day (i.e. 14 February 2020). The panel was satisfied that no prejudice would be caused to Mr Jones by the amendment. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of referral and response – pages 5 to 28 Section 2: Documents – pages 30 to 221 Section 3: Teacher correspondence – pages 223 to 233 The panel members confirmed that they had read all the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses There were no witnesses. 6 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered this case and reached a decision. Mr Kevin Jones was employed as Deputy Headteacher at Brownhill Learning Community (‘the School’), Rochdale from 1 January 2005 until 31 August 2022. The School campus included a Pupil Referral Service and the Special School in which he was based. It was alleged that, on 14 February 2020, Mr Jones inappropriately intervened in an incident when he wrapped his arm around the neck of Pupil A, held his arm behind his back and lifted him off the floor, before taking the pupil to the Reflection Room. It was further alleged that, a short while later, Mr Jones used disproportionate force in relation to another child, Pupil B after he entered the Reflection Room. It was alleged that Mr Jones pointed for him to sit in the corner and then took hold of Pupil B’s arms and crossed the child’s arm across his own body and used his left leg to pin the child into the corner of the room. Following a police investigation, Mr Jones was charged with two offences of child cruelty. On 17 May 2022, he appeared in the Crown Court, when he pleaded guilty to the two offences. On 21 June 2022, Mr Jones was sentenced for the offences. Mr Jones resigned from his position at the School on 16 August 2022. The panel noted that the bundle of documents included references to incidents involving the handling of pupils on other dates that were not the subject of the convictions. The panel accepted the legal advice that these documents were not relevant, and the panel disregarded them. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that you have been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 17 May 2022 you were convicted at Minshull Street Crown Court for one or more counts of child cruelty on 14 February 2020 The panel was presented with a certificate from the Crown Court at Manchester Minshull Street confirming that, on 17 May 2022, Mr Jones was convicted upon his own confession of two counts of child cruelty contrary to section 1(1) of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, for which he was sentenced on 21 June 2022. The certificate confirmed that Mr Jones was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment suspended for 24 months for each offence. The periods of the suspended sentences 7 were ordered to run concurrently. Mr Jones was also made the subject of a rehabilitation activity requirement for 10 days and required to perform 210 hours of unpaid work. He was also required to pay £3,500 towards the costs of the prosecution and a victim surcharge of £149. In addition to the certificate of conviction, the panel was presented with a copy of transcript of the sentencing hearing in the Crown Court on 21 June 2022. The transcript recorded the following comments of the Judge when sentencing Mr Jones: “You have pleaded guilty to cruelty of two little boys [Pupil A and Pupil B]. You were in a position of power in that school, a Deputy Head Teacher providing education for pupils with social, emotional and mental health needs. The CCTV footage of these incidents is truly shocking. The situation was clearly under control. Other teachers were managing the fallout of earlier bad behaviour and you needlessly intervened when you lost your temper. You grabbed hold of [Pupil A] by his neck and caused redness and marks around his neck. It is clear to see his distress in that Reflection Room and then when [Pupil B] was brought into the room you behaved towards him in a cruel way completely needlessly. The boy was not doing anything at all other than walking into the room. Two totally needless, senseless, acts of cruelty which, of course, had an effect on those two little boys as revealed by [Pupil A’s] behaviour when he got home and told his mum what had happened. The effect of such cruelty can have lifetime consequences, particularly for youngsters who are struggling, and it seems that [Pupil A] has, or likely has, a diagnosis of ADHD. The offence against [Pupil A] is aggravated because you blamed [Pupil A] himself for the red marks on his neck as a way to save your own skin. In your position of power and authority you relied on his history of self-harm in an attempt to conceal your own offending, no doubt in the belief that the boy would not be believed but, of course, the CCTV gave lie to your denials. The offence was also aggravated because it was committed in the presence of another child and, of course, I am sentencing you for two offences. Set against that is your good character. These offences were out of character. You have worked in this area for a long time with distinction. You have lost your career and reputation and the offences themselves were short-lived, although I have no doubt the consequences to the children will not be.” The panel accepted the legal advice that the certificate of conviction represented conclusive proof of the commission of the offences that are the s