Mr Liam I’Anson-North

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 Liam I’Anson-North

Teacher reference number: 1246649

Teacher's date of birth: 02 June 1994

Location teacher worked: Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 October 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 Liam I’Anson-Nort, formerly employed in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, 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 Liam I’Anson-North Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Liam I’Anson-North Teacher ref number: 1246649 Teacher date of birth: 02 June 1994 TRA reference: 20793 Date of determination: 17 October 2024 Former employer: Ravensthorpe CE (VC) Junior School, Dewsbury (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 17 October 2024, to consider the case of Mr I’Anson-North. The panel members were Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Rosemary Joyce (teacher panellist), and Mrs Hannah Foster (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Ella Crine of Three Raymond Buildings barristers. Mr I’Anson-North 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 Hearing dated 17 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr I’Anson-North was guilty of having been convicted of relevant offences, namely: 1. On 12 June 2023, Mr I’Anson-North was convicted of the offence of Attempt/Engage in Sexual Communication with a Child on 25/03/21 - 09/06/21 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1). 2. On 12 June 2023, Mr I’Anson-North was convicted of the offence of Attempt/Cause/Incite Female Child Under 16 to Engage in Sexual Activity - Offender 18 or over - No Penetration on 25/03/21 - 09/06/21 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.10(1)(a). 3. On 12 June 2023, Mr I’Anson-North was convicted of the offence of Attempt/Cause/Incite a Girl Under 13 to Engage in Sexual Activity - Penetration on 28/03/21 Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.8(1). Mr I’Anson-North admitted having been convicted of all three counts by a jury, but maintained his innocence. He therefore does not admit that he is guilty of any relevant offences. Preliminary applications The panel considered preliminary applications as follows: Application to proceed in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr I’Anson-North. The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr I'Anson- North. 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 Hearing complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003], 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 5 considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis [2016]. In making its decision, the panel noted the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003]. Mr I’Anson-North communicated with the TRA via a prison officer who explained that Mr I’Anson-North’s ability to correspond was limited. On 26 June 2024, the prison officer communicated queries Mr I’Anson-North had around the public nature of the hearing and whether the case could be concluded based solely on his convictions, rather than whether he admitted his guilt or maintained his innocence. On the same date, the prison officer confirmed they were content for any correspondence to be directed via their email address. A response to Mr I’Anson-North’s queries was provided to the prison officer on 2 July 2024. On 16 July 2024, the TRA asked the prison officer if he could consult with Mr I’Anson- North regarding his availability for the hearing, and that if no response was received, the TRA would proceed to list the hearing. The same day, the TRA informed the prison officer that a professional conduct panel was available to hear the case on 17 October 2024, and asked if Mr I’Anson North intended to be present, requesting a response by 23 July 2024. On 23 July 2024, the prison officer responded stating “I can confirm that Liam has declined to attend the hearing.” The panel therefore considered that Mr I’Anson-North had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. There was no indication that Mr I’Anson-North would attend if the hearing was adjourned. To the contrary, Mr I’Anson-North communicated via the prison officer that he fully accepted that “he will never be able to teach again”. There was no indication that Mr I’Anson-North intended to present any defence to the allegations, nor any mitigation. Mr I’Anson-North was not represented in these proceedings but had not indicated that he wished to obtain representation. Since this case related to a number of convictions, the panel was obliged to accept any certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction unless exceptional circumstances apply. Mr I’Anson-North had not indicated any exceptional circumstances apply. Given that the panel will be dependent upon the certificate of conviction as to whether the facts alleged 6 are proven, which the panel anticipated receiving as evidence, the extent of the disadvantage to Mr I’Anson North not being able to give his account of events relates only to whether the convictions were of relevant offences and mitigation. The panel considered that the risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of Mr I’Anson-North was low, given the clear communication that he had declined to attend and the concerns he had expressed about the hearing being in public. The panel recognised that the allegations against Mr I’Anson-North were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. No witnesses were due to give evidence and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses is not a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr I’Anson-North. The panel considered that Mr I’Anson-North had clearly waived his right to appear. On balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of the hearing continuing. Application to admit late documents The presenting officer applied to admit documents not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.36 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the presenting officer’s submission that the hearing bundle, referred to as “the Bundle”, was not served on Mr I’Anson North within 10 weeks of the hearing. As such, the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. Under paragraph 5.33 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 presenting officer directed the panel to the correspondence bundle dated 15 October 2024. The panel determined the correspondence bundle was admitted in support of the presenting officer’s applications and therefore did not need to comply with the service requirements of paragraph 5.36 of the Procedures. The panel noted the correspondence bundle contained an email from Mr I’Anson-North’s prison officer to a representative of the TRA, stating that Mr I’Anson-North had “confirmed he is happy to waiver the 10 week period”. 7 The panel was satisfied that the Bundle was relevant to the case as it contained the evidence to be relied upon by the presenting officer at the hearing, including the certificate of conviction. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer on the admission of documents and the panel exercised caution in exercising this discretion given that it has determined to proceed with this hearing in the absence of the teacher. With regard to the overall question of fairness, the panel concluded it would be fair to admit the evidence. Given, the absence of the teacher, the panel considered whether he had received the documents and had sufficient opportunities to make representations about it. The panel determined that Mr I’Anson-North was served the Bundle within 6 weeks of the hearing, and the correspondence from his prison officer confirmed that he did not wish “to provide anything to the panel” or to have “any part in the proceedings”. Further, the panel ackno