Mr Liam Shakles

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 Shakles

Teacher reference number: 18816

Teacher's date of birth: 25 April 1995

Location teacher worked: Redditch, west midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 July 2022

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 Shakles, formerly employed in Redditch, west 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 Liam Shakles: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Liam Shakles Teacher ref number: 1859913 Teacher date of birth: 25 April 1995 TRA reference: 18816 Date of determination: 8 July 2022 Former employer: Ridgeway Academy, Redditch Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 8 July 2022 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Liam Shakles. The panel members were Ms Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist) and Mr Aidan Jenkins (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Olivia Toulson of Birketts LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Shakles that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Shakles provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Ruth Miller of Fieldfisher, Mr Shakles or any representative for Mr Shakles. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 14 June 2022. It was alleged that Mr Shakles was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that he was convicted of: 1. Attempting/engaging in sexual communication with a child between 4 July 2019 and 8 July 2019, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1). 2. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 3. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 4. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 5. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 6. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 7. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). Mr Shakles admitted the facts of allegations 1 to 7 and that his behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the response to the notice of proceedings dated 11 March 2022 and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Shakles on 18 January 2022. The panel noted however that in respect of allegation 1, Mr Shakles admitted in the statement of agreed facts that he was convicted of attempting to engage in sexual communications with a child between 4 July 2019 and 8 July 2019 contrary to the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 s1(1), rather that contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 15A(1). This is also reflected in the Certificate of Conviction. 5 Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the “May 2020 Procedures”). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 (the “April 2018 Procedures”) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 1 to 2 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 3 to 20 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 21 to 26 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 67 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 68 to 74 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Shakles on 18 January 2022. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: 6 In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Shakles for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Shakles commenced employment as an unqualified teacher at Ridgeway Academy (‘the School’) on 2 September 2019. On 19 September 2019, Mr Shakles was arrested on suspicion of possession of indecent images of children and attempting to engage in sexual communications with a child. Mr Shakles’ employment was terminated on 4 October 2019. On 4 March 2021, Mr Shakles was convicted and sentenced at Worcester Crown Court, of six counts of making indecent photographs of children and one count of attempting to engage in sexual communications with a child. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Attempting/engaging in sexual communication with a child between 4 July 2019 and 8 July 2019, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1). 2. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 3. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 4. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 5. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 7 6. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). 7. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 23 February 2015 and 17 September 2019, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1(a). The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Shakles on 18 January 2022. In that statement of agreed facts, Mr Shakles admitted the particulars of allegations 1 to 7 (save that in respect of allegation 1, this was admitted under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981). Further, it was admitted that the facts of the allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Nonetheless, the panel made a determination based on the facts and the evidence available to it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Worcester Crown Court, which detailed that Mr Shakles had been convicted of 6 counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children and 1 count of attempting/engaging in sexual communications with someone who he thought was a child. In respect of the allegations, Mr Shakles was sentenced at Worcester Crown Court on 4 March 2021 to a total of 14 months’ imprisonment. In addition, he was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years; made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years; required to forfeit all devices; and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £100. On examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred