Mr Malcolm Lowe

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 Malcolm Lowe

Location teacher worked: Handsworth, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 21 to 24 October 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 Malcolm Lowe, formerly employed in Handsworth, 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 Malcolm Lowe: 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 5 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 25 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 28 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Malcolm Lowe TRA reference: 18726 Date of determination: 25 October 2024 Former employer: St Marys C of E Primary and Nursery, Academy, Handsworth (formally known as St Mary's C of E Junior and Infant School) Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 21 to 24 October 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Malcolm Lowe. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist) and Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Lowe was present and was represented by Ms Briony Molyneux of Crucible Law. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 9 October 2024. It was alleged that Mr Lowe was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at St Marys C of E Primary and Nursery, Academy, Handsworth (formally known as St Mary's C of E Junior and Infant School)(‘the School’): 1. I n or around 2001 you failed to disclose receipt of one or more personal letters which you received from Pupil B in which she; a. Provided her personal contact information and home address; b. Stated “I love you a bit” c. Stated “I love you” d. Included a picture of a love heart; e. Stated “I really love you. I’m always thinking about you. I always look at your photo I have got. I will give you my photo…” 2. In or around 2001 you displayed inappropriate behaviour towards Pupil B by; a. Meeting alone with Pupil B in a classroom cupboard / storage room; b. Hugging Pupil B; c. Kissing Pupil B on the lips; d. Encouraging or allowing Pupil B to sit on your lap and/or rock her body against you; e. Putting your hand up Pupil B’s top and touching her back; f. Engaging in telephone conversations with Pupil B outside of school hours; g. Discussing your personal life with her; h. Gifting her a teddy holding a love heart. 3. You instructed Pupil B to keep your conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 2 above secret. 4. Your conduct as may be found proven at allegation 2 was sexually motivated. 5. [Allegation discontinued].5 6. Your conduct as may be proven at Allegation 3 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr Lowe denied allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), 2 (g), 2(h), 3, 4 and 6, as set out in his written statement, which he signed on the 8 October 2024. Preliminary applications Day 1: 21 October 2024 Application to discontinue allegation 5 The presenting officer made an application to discontinue allegation 5, which read as follows: [REDACTED] The presenting officer made this application because, following a review of the evidence, the presenting officer did not consider it appropriate to continue with allegation 5, as there was insufficient evidence. Mr Lowe’s representative did not object to this application. The panel was advised that it has the power to amend the allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 the (‘2018 Procedures’). The panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to discontinue allegation 5 and accordingly allegation 5 was discontinued and disregarded. Application to amend allegation 6 The presenting officer made a further application to amend the wording of allegation 6 to remove reference to allegation 5. “6. Your co nduct as may be proven at Allegations 3 and 5 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity.” This application to amend allegation 6 was made t o clarify t he allegations, on the basis t hat if allegation 5 was discontinued, there would be no need to refer to it in allegation 6. Mr Lowe’s representative did not object to this application. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the 2018 Procedures. 6 The panel was satisfied that the proposed amendment to allegation 6 did not change the nature, scope, or seriousness of the allegations and that the amendments did not cause unfairness or prejudice. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegation, which is set out above. The presenting officer’s application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents contained within a disputed document bundle. The presenting officer’s documents were: • MG11 Witness Statement of [REDACTED] from Exhibit ASP7, which was undated. • Response from Mr Lowe re Pupil B from Notes of Disciplinary Hearing in December 2002, which was undated. • Information reported to [REDACTED] by staff members regarding Pupil B and Mr Lowe, dated 19 September 2002. The panel received submissions from the teacher’s representative and the presenting officer. The panel was not provided with copies of and, therefore, did not read the documents prior to making a decision as to whether they should be admitted. The panel therefore made its decision based on the submissions of the presenting officer and Mr Lowe’s representative. Mr Lowe’s representative objected to the inclusion of the additional documents because the documents contained hearsay evidence. As part of its consideration, the panel’s attention was drawn to the case of Thorneycroft v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2014] EWCA 1565, where the court confirmed that the admission of the statement of an absent witness should not be regarded as a routine matter, and that the panel should consider the issue of fairness before admitting the evidence. The panel was also referred to the case of El Karout v Nursing and Midwifery Council [2019] EWHC 28. 7 The panel carefully considered the submissions to determine whether it would be fair to admit the evidence. The presenting officer submitted that the disputed documents bundle had been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the 2018 Procedures but had been removed from the bundle for the hearing as Mr Lowe disputed their inclusion. The panel considered each document in turn: 1. MG11 Witness Statement of [REDACTED] from Exhibit ASP7 The presenting officer submitted this was a contemporaneous account of Pupil B’s evidence and was relevant and, therefore, should be admitted. Mr Lowe’s representative submitted that the statement had not been dated and contained hearsay evidence; it was a statement from Pupil B’s [REDACTED], following her speaking to Pupil B and then relaying this to the police. Therefore, as the statement contained multiple levels of hearsay evidence and it would be difficult to test, it should not be admitted. Mr Lowe’s representative also raised the fact that it was a heavily redacted document, and therefore, the panel was unable to ascertain how quickly and when in time it had been reported, how the officer had recorded the conversation, and if it had been verbatim. The panel considered the submissions that this was an MG11 witness statement produced by a serving police officer, in the course of their duties and, therefore, this gave weight to this document. The panel considered the additional document to be relevant. The panel noted that this witness evidence was not the sole and decisive evidence in relation to the allegations and that there were other documents to which the panel could refer. Further, Pupil B was attending to give evidence, and, therefore, the panel felt it would be able to test the reliability of the statement with Pupil B. The panel concluded that the balance of fairness was not against admitting the statement as hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the document was admitted and considered in the panel's deliberations. 2. Response from Mr Lowe re Pupil B from Notes of Disciplinary Hearing in December 2002 The presenting officer submitted that this was a contemporaneous document from the School disciplinary hearing in December 2002. The presenting offer stated that allegation 1 was put to Mr Lowe at the disciplinary hearing and he provided a response, which was therefore relevant to the proceedings and should be admitted. 8 Mr Lowe’s representative objected to the admission of the first two sentences of the document, arguing that they pertained to a different allegation which was not under consideration at this hearing. He submitted that including these sentences would prejudice Mr Lowe. The presenting officer did not object to the first two sentences of the document being redacted. The panel concluded that the additional document was relevant, except for the first two sentences, which pertained to a differe