Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

462516

Teacher's date of birth:

11 May 1982

Location teacher worked:

Nottingham, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel:

16 August 2019

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 Mark David Attwood, formerly employed in Nottingham, East of England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 16 August 2019..

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 Mark David Attwood: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 D. Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 111 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark David Attwood Teacher ref number: 462516 Teacher date of birth: 11 May 1982 TRA reference: 17146 Date of determination: 16 August 2019 Former employer: Nottingham Academy School, Nottingham A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 16 August 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Mark David Attwood. The panel members were Mr Ian Hughes (lay panellist – in the chair), Cllr Gail Goodman (teacher panellist) and Ms Karen McArthur (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Mark David Attwood that the allegation(s) be considered without a hearing. Mr Mark David Attwood provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Mark David Attwood or his representative. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 14 August 2019. It was alleged that Mr Attwood was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Nottingham Academy School he: 1. Distributed an indecent photograph or pseudo-photographs of children on 25 July 2017; and 2. In relation to his conduct at allegation 1 received a caution from Nottinghamshire Police contrary to Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 on 19 February 2018. The panel noted that Mr Attwood had admitted the above allegations in his response to the Notice of Referral Form dated 26 January 2019. The panel further noted that Mr Attwood admitted that those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of Meeting and Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 2 to 10 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 11 to 100 Section 3: Teacher documents – pages 101 to 102 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the meeting. The panel received in addition an email exchange between the TRA and Mr Attwood of 13 August 2019, an amended Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Attwood on 13 August 2019 and an amended Notice of Meeting dated 14 August 2019. The panel noted that the amended Notice of Meeting dated 14 August 2019 referred erroneously to the meeting convening on 9 August 2019. The panel was however, satisfied that Mr Attwood had consented to the meeting taking place, regardless of when it was to be held. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered an amended statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Mark David Attwood on 13 August 2019. The panel acknowledged that Mr Attwood admitted to all of the factual allegations (as set out in the Notice of the Meeting) and that he admitted his behaviour in distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children on 25 July 2017 was both inappropriate and unprofessional. D. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. The panel confirmed that it had read all of the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the meeting. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Attwood 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 Attwood was employed at the school as Head of Performing Arts, ICT and Business from 1 September 2005. On 29 November 2017, Mr Attwood was arrested on suspicion of making and/or possessing indecent images of children. Mr Attwood was suspended on 30 November 2017 pending the outcome of the school’s internal disciplinary investigation as well as external police and safeguarding investigations. On 19 March 2018, the school confirmed its intention to conduct a disciplinary meeting. Mr Attwood attended a disciplinary meeting on 27 March 2018, and he was summarily dismissed. The panel turned its own independent minds to determine its findings of fact and were uninfluenced by the outcome of the school’s disciplinary process. Findings of fact The findings of fact were as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 6 1. You distributed an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of one or more children on 25 July 2017; The panel noted that Mr Attwood admitted to this allegation in his response to the Notice of Referral Form dated 26 January 2019 as well as in the agreed statement of facts signed by Mr Attwood on 13 August 2019. The panel also noted that Mr Attwood had admitted this allegation to the police as part of their investigation, in accepting the caution and during the disciplinary meeting with the school. The panel considered the caution issued on 19 February 2018 and noted the caution itself stated that “Mr Attwood admitted re-tweeting images of girls aged between 16-20 most images were borderline category C images. There was one image of three girls that were around 8 years”. The panel noted that Mr Attwood was a teacher at the time of this allegation. The panel therefore found this allegation proven. 2. In relation to your conduct at allegation 1, you received a caution from Nottinghamshire Police contrary to Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978 on 19 February 2018 The panel noted that Mr Attwood admitted to this allegation in his response to the Notice of Referral Form dated 26 January 2019 as well as in the agreed statement of facts signed by Mr Attwood on 13 August 2019. The panel also noted that Mr Attwood admitted this allegation during the disciplinary meeting with the school. The panel acknowledged the caution issued on 19 February 2018. The panel noted that although the caution itself made no reference to the specific legislation that had been contravened, the PNC document referred to the offence as being contrary to Protection of Children Act 1978, s1. The panel therefore found this allegation proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations admitted and proven, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amounts to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document ‘Teacher Misconduct: the Prohibition of Teachers’, which is referred to as “the Advice”. 7 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Attwood in relation to the facts found proven, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part Two, Mr Attwood was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o not undermining fundamental British values, including … the rule of law… ; • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach; • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Attwood fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel also considered whether Mr Attwood’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice. The panel found that the offence of distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or pseudo photograph or image of a child, was relevant in considering Mr Attwood’s conduct. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel noted that the allegations took place outside of the education setting. However, the conduct in question raises safeguarding issues and has the potential to place children at risk. Accordingly,