Mr Liam O’Leary

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Liam O’Leary

Teacher reference number: 1137028

Teacher's date of birth: 10 March 1986

Location teacher worked: Sheffield, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 to 27 March 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 O’Leary, formerly employed in Sheffield, Yorkshire and the Humber.

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 O’Leary: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 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 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Liam O’Leary Teacher ref number: 1137028 Teacher date of birth: 10 March 1986 TRA reference: 18619 Date of determination: 27 March 2024 Former employer: Beck Primary School, Sheffield Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 25 to 27 March 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Liam O’Leary. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Antonia Jackson (teacher panellist) and Ms Sarah Daniel (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Maddie Taylor of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr O’Leary 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 23 January 2024. It was alleged that Mr O’Leary was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst working as a supply teacher at Beck Primary School: 1. Between around 1 November 2013 and 31 December 2013 in relation to Child A, who he knew or ought to have known was under the age of 16, he: a) Engaged in the exchange of sexually explicit messages with Child A; and/or b) Caused and/or allowed Child A to send him indecent images of herself; and/or c) Engaged in one or more sexually explicit conversations with Child A; and/or d) On one or more occasions, engaged in kissing and/or sexual touching with Child A; and/or e) On one or more occasions, engaged in oral sex and/or penetrative sexual activity with Child A The panel noted that Mr O’Leary admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c), but denied allegations 1(d) and 1(e), as set out in his representations dated 5 November 2023 at page 170 of the bundle. Preliminary applications Application to admit additional documents and submissions regarding sufficient notice of hearing The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents to specifically deal with the question as to whether Mr O’Leary had been served with the Notice of Proceedings in line with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the ‘2018 Procedures’). The presenting officer’s additional documents were a service bundle comprising of 26 pages, a two-page document evidencing a TRA caseworker providing Mr O’Leary with a password to access an electronic version of the Notice of Proceedings and a two-page document evidencing the TRA’s efforts to post a hard-copy version of the Notice of Proceedings to Mr O’Leary. 5 The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the 2018 Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel noted the presenting officer’s submissions that none of the documents proposing to now be admitted were alien to Mr O’Leary as he himself was the sender or recipient of all of the documents the presenting officer was seeking to admit, with one exception. The exception was the email seeking proof of postage regarding the hard copy version of the Notice of Proceedings and the panel did not consider that the fact Mr O’Leary had never had sight of this email could be prejudicial to him in respect of the admitting of the document for the purposes of this hearing. The panel also considered the presenting officer’s submissions that the initial email containing the Notice of Proceedings was sent at 2.40pm on 23 January 2024, the password email was sent at 2.42pm on that same day, and at 2.49pm Mr O’Leary sent an email stating "thank-you" to the TRA caseworker who had sent through the two documents. The panel also heard submissions from the presenting officer stating that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr O’Leary had any issue in accessing the electronic version of the Notice of Proceedings with the password provided. The presenting officer referred to Mr O’Leary stating his concerns about issues with the delivery of the hard copy of the Notice of Proceedings, as seen on page 17 of the service bundle. The panel noted the presenting officer’s representation that even if there had been issues around the service of the hard copy Proceedings, the Proceedings had been properly, electronically served on Mr O’Leary on 23 January 2024. The panel concluded that the additional documents were not only relevant but essential in demonstrating that the 2018 Procedures had been properly adhered to, and that Mr O’Leary had in fact been provided with sufficient notice of the hearing. The panel considered Mr O’Leary would suffer no disadvantage as a result of the decision to admit the additional documents and that even if Mr O’Leary did not access the Proceedings, the panel was satisfied the TRA had sent it in sufficient time in line with the 2018 Procedures. The panel considered that it was fair in all the circumstances to admit the documents, and that they did not raise new factual matters with specific reference to the allegations. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. 6 Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr O’Leary was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr O’Leary. 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). Following the successful application by the presenting officer to adduce new evidence to demonstrate that the Notice of Proceedings was served on Mr O’Leary on 23 January 2024, the panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr O’Leary in accordance with the 2018 Procedures. The panel noted the presenting officer’s submission stating that the default position in such regulatory matters is that the registrant should be present, and that in these circumstances Mr O’Leary’s absence was voluntary and he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The presenting officer submitted that there is a balance of fairness to be struck between Mr O’Leary’s right to be present at the hearing and the regulator’s position of responsibility to protect the public and move matters along efficiently. The presenting officer further submitted that it was also within Mr O’Leary’s best interests to progress this matter without any further delay. The panel noted the presenting officer’s question as to what would be achieved if the application were not granted, and the panel was particularly compelled by the presenting officer’s submission that there was no evidence to suggest that postponing and relisting the hearing would lead to Mr O’Leary’s attendance. The presenting officer specifically drew the panel’s attention to Mr O’Leary’s statement at page 2 of the service bundle in which he stated with regards to the listing of the hearing, “any date would be fine […] I will not be taking part in proceedings”. The panel noted that Mr O’Leary 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 O’Leary was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel concluded that there was no prospect of Mr O’Leary attending an adjourned hearing, and felt that Mr O’Leary had been afforded the opportunity to make representations regarding the allegations. The panel concluded this was an opportunity Mr O’Leary had, to some extent, utilised and the panel particularly noted pages 169-171 of the bundle in which Mr O’Leary provided some comment on the allegations. The panel also considered the effect any delay may have on the witness. 7 The panel decided that it was proportionate and appropriate for it to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of Mr O’Leary and that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. 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 Mr O’Leary was neither present nor represented. Application for the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from Mr O’Leary that the hearing should be heard in private. The panel noted that Mr O’Leary was not present at the hearing to make oral submissions regarding the application, and the only evidence the panel was able to consider was that Mr O’Leary had ticked the box on his Notice of Proceedings response indicating he wished for the hearing to be held in private, and his comments in an email on 27 February 2024, which read as follows: “I have requested the heari