Mr Lee Brookes

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 Lee Brookes

Location teacher worked: West Ashby, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 to 24 July 2024

Outcome type: No order made

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 Lee Brookes formerly employed in West Ashby, East Midlands.

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 Lee Brookes: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Lee Brookes TRA reference: 21421 Date of determination: 24 July 2024 Former employer: Build a future Independent School, Lincolnshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 22 to 24 July 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Lee Brookes. The panel members were Ms Louisa Munton (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Debra Vaughan (lay panellist) and Ms Christine Cunniffe (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Brookes was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 10 May 2024. It was alleged that Mr Brookes was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On or around 24 November 2021, he used a hammer to hit and/or smash a pool table, witnessed by staff and/or pupils. 2. His actions at paragraph 1 placed staff and/or pupils with social, emotional mental health needs at risk of harm and/or distress. 3. In or around November 2021, he made comments of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature and/or swore at and/or in front of pupils. Mr Brookes made no admission of fact in respect of the allegations. However, the panel noted that Mr Brookes, in his written statement, did admit that he damaged the pool table but that he was doing so in an attempt to decommission the pool table to prevent further incidents and that no learners or staff were in the room. Preliminary applications Application to admit additional documents The panel identified that Mr Brookes had provided a bundle of documents titled late papers teachers submissions, and the documents subject to the application had not been served per the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. The teacher’s bundle of documents included: • Statement to Witness A’s witness statement. • Statement to Individual B’s witness statement. • Statement to Pupil J witness statement. • Character statement from Individual C. • Unedited Exhibit A – Investigation summary report, dated 01/02/2022. • Kingsley Napley Information report. 5 The panel also considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents. The presenting officer’s documents were: • A correspondence bundle. • Appendices to skeleton argument. The documents from the teacher referred to above, and the presenting officer subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 of the 2020 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer regarding his application and the admission of Mr Brookes’ documents. The presenting officer did not object to the admission of Mr Brookes’ documents. The panel considered that Mr Brookes’ additional documents were relevant, and it was in the interest of Mr Brookes to admit these documents, as this provided details he proposed to rely on in response to the allegations. The panel considered the TRA’s additional documents were relevant, as they related to the application to admit the TRA’s witness statements as hearsay. The panel considered it was in the interest of justice to admit these documents, particularly as they related to an application being made by the presenting officer. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Brookes was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Brookes. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba [2016]). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Brookes in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). On 5 July 2024, Mr Brookes emailed Sophie Allen, of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors, to confirm that he had changed his mind about attending and that, upon receiving the documentation, he had “decided not to attend the hearing.” 6 The panel also noted that Mr Brookes had submitted his response to the allegations and the TRA’s witness statements in his documents titled late papers. Therefore, he had engaged in the process but chose not to attend the hearing. The panel, therefore, concluded that Mr Brookes’ absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Brookes had not sought an adjournment to the hearing, and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Brookes was unfit to attend the hearing. It also considered the effect on the witness of any delay. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect of any delay on the witnesses. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that the teacher was neither present nor represented. Application for statements of witnesses to be admitted as hearsay The presenting officer made an application that the statements of Individual B and Pupil J be admitted as hearsay evidence in the absence of the witness. After receiving written and oral submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the panel made the following decision. As part of its consideration, the panel’s attention was drawn to the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWHC 1565 (Admin), which set out the relevant principles which emerged from previous authorities. The High Court’s judgment in the case of El Karout v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2019] EWHC 28 (Admin) followed the judgment in Thorneycroft, that admissibility and weight are distinct and separate issues. The panel carefully considered the submissions made in determining whether it would be fair to admit the statements as hearsay evidence. Pupil J The panel noted that although no medical evidence has been provided in support of the application, it had been provided with emails from Pupil J’s [REDACTED] to confirm that Pupil J was [REDACTED]. The panel, therefore, had evidence that the TRA had sought to secure Pupil J to give evidence at the hearing but that they were unable to secure Pupil J’s attendance due to Pupil J’s [REDACTED]. 7 The panel noted that the evidence of the witness was not the sole and decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. Furthermore, the evidence was not such that the panel felt that it would be unable to test its reliability in the absence of the witness. The panel noted that Mr Brookes had provided his comments on Pupil J’s statement. The panel concluded that the balance of fairness was not against admitting the statement as hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the statement of Pupil J will be admitted and will be considered in the panel's deliberations. Individual B The panel considered the correspondence bundle provided titled “Correspondence Bundle Individual B”, which contained evidence of the attempts made to secure Individual B to give evidence at the hearing. The presenting officer submitted that this evidence demonstrated that attempts had been made to secure Individual B’s attendance. However, Individual B had stopped engaging. In particular, the panel noted that they had gone as far as going to Individual B’s latest known place of work to try to secure her attendance at the hearing. The panel noted that the witness's evidence was not the sole and decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. Furthermore, the evidence was not such that the panel felt that it would be unable to test its reliability in the absence of the witness. The panel noted that Mr Brookes had provided his comments on Individual B’s statement. The panel concluded that the balance of fairness was not against admitting the statement as hearsay evidence. Accordingly, Individual B’s statement will be admitted and considered in the panel's deliberations. Application to amend allegation 1 On the second day of the hearing, the presenting officer made an application to amend allegation 1, changing “witnessed” to “heard” or, in the alternative removing the words “witnessed by staff and/or pupils”. The presenting officer made submissions. The panel noted that the teacher had not been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 202