Mr Mark Hunt

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 Mark Hunt

Teacher reference number: 0735281

Teacher's date of birth: 22 October 1982

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 September 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 Mark Hunt formerly employed in Birmingham, 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.

al Mr Mark Hunt: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark Hunt Teacher ref number: 0735281 Teacher date of birth: 22 October 1982 TRA reference: 20453 Date of determination: 26 September 2024 Former employer: Bartley Green School, Birmingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened remotely via Microsoft Teams on 26 September 2024, to consider the case of Mr Mark Hunt. The panel members were Ms Nicola Hartley (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Nick Watkiss (teacher panellist) and Ms Megan Gomm (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan 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 Hunt that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Hunt provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Hunt or any representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 12 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Hunt was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a Lead Practitioner of Geography/Teacher at Bartley Green School: 1. On or around 9 June 2021, he sent communications of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature to Pupil A, a pupil at his former school, who was [REDACTED] at the time; 2. On or around 17 March 2023, he accepted a police caution in relation to attempting to cause a female aged 13 or over to engage in sexual activity – no penetration; 3. Between 7 February 2021 and 9 February 2021, he sent communications of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature to Pupil J, a pupil at his former school; 4. His conduct at allegation 1 and/or allegation 3 was sexually motivated. Mr Hunt admitted the facts of all the allegations. Mr Hunt also admitted that his actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. 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 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of referral and response – pages 7 to 26 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 27 to 29 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 32 to 291 5 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 292 to 295 Section 6: Notice of meeting – pages 296 to 297 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 Hunt on 19 August 2024. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Hunt 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. From September 2016 to approximately April 2019, Mr Hunt was employed as a teacher at the Ark Kings Academy (“the Academy”). On 29 April 2019, Mr Hunt commenced employment at Bartley Green School (“the School”) as a teacher/lead practitioner of Geography. In February 2021 and June 2021 respectively, Mr Hunt was accused of sending messages to a pupil and a former pupil of the Academy. Concerns were first reported to the Academy on 10 June 2021, in response to which a LADO referral was made and the School was informed. The police were also notified and Mr Hunt was arrested on 11 June 2021. On 14 June 2021, Mr Hunt was suspended by the School pending the police investigation. On 3 November 2021, an independent investigation was commenced on behalf of the School. On 29 November 2021, prior to the investigation being completed, Mr Hunt resigned from his position. 6 On 6 December 2021, the School held a disciplinary hearing in Mr Hunt’s absence. On 13 December 2021, Mr Hunt was referred to the TRA by the School. Finally, on 17 March 2023, Mr Hunt accepted a police adult conditional caution. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On or around 9 June 2021, you sent communications of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature to Pupil A, a pupil at your former school, who was [REDACTED] at the time. Mr Hunt taught Pupil A when he worked at the Academy and was [REDACTED]. Mr Hunt admits that: • On 9 June 2021, when Pupil A [REDACTED], she sent a friend request to Mr Hunt via Facebook. • Whilst the request was not accepted, Mr Hunt exchanged messages with Pupil A via Facebook messenger that evening, copies of which were included in evidence. • Within the messages Mr Hunt asked Pupil A if she fancied him, if she wanted to have sex with him, if she masturbated and if she shaved. For example, Mr Hunt sent messages including the following comments: o “ So do you fancy me? x”; o “Did you ever fantasise about me? x”; o “Did you masterbate thinking about us? X”; o “I’ve thought about you x”; o “So have you stroked thinking of me? x”; o “So do you want sex with me if you could? X”; o “Breast size? x”. Mr Hunt accordingly admitted the facts of allegation 1. The panel accepted Mr Hunt’s admission, which was consistent with the evidence before it, not least the messages themselves. 7 The messages were, by their nature, of a sexual nature and inappropriate, which Mr Hunt also admitted. Some of the messages, including those set out above, were sexually explicit. The messages were also inappropriate given Pupil A’s age and status as a recent, former pupil of Mr Hunt who remained a pupil at the Academy. Considering the messages as a whole, the panel noted it was Mr Hunt who repeatedly attempted to focus the conversation on matters of a sexual nature, which was an aggravating feature of his conduct. The panel therefore found allegation 1 proved. 2. On or around 17 March 2023, you accepted a police caution in relation to attempting to cause a female aged 13 or over to engage in sexual activity – no penetration. Mr Hunt admitted allegation 2. A copy of the caution, signed by Mr Hunt on 17 March 2023, was included in evidence. It records that Mr Hunt accepted the caution for the offence of attempting to cause a female aged 13 or over to engage in sexual activity. The caution was also recorded on Mr Hunt’s PNC record. T he panel therefore found allegation 2 proved. 3. B etween 7 February 2021 and 9 February 2021, you sent communications of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature to Pupil J, a pupil at your former school. Mr Hunt taught Pupil J when he worked at the Academy. By February 2021, she had started [REDACTED]. Mr Hunt admits that: • Within the period specified, he corresponded with Pupil J via Facebook messenger. • Within the messages he asked Pupil J if she fancied him and if she wanted sex. Mr Hunt accordingly admitted the facts of allegation 3. The panel accepted Mr Hunt’s admission, which was consistent with the evidence before it. Certain of the messages were, by their nature, of a sexual nature and inappropriate, which Mr Hunt also admitted. The messages were also inappropriate having regard to Pupil J’s status as a former pupil of Mr Hunt. The messages were relatively innocuous until Mr Hunt, unilaterally, sought to manoeuvre the conversation to matters of a sexual 8 nature, which Pupil J immediately highlighted as being inappropriate. Having done so, he alluded to Pupil J’s appearance, her relationship status and then explicitly sexual matters, which Pupil J had by no means encouraged and, from the messages, clearly led to Pupil J being understandably made to feel uncomfortable. Mr Hunt expressly referenced and therefore sought to leverage his status as Pupil J’s former teacher in the exchange, which was a concerning feature of his actions. The exchange also took place via social media, such that the School’s policies were engaged. Mr Hunt expressly held himself out as an educator on social media, which was a further aspect of the inappropriateness of Mr Hunt’s actions. The panel therefore found allegation 3 proved. 4. Your conduct at allegation 1 and/or allegation 3 was sexually motivated. Having found the facts of allegations 1 and 3 proved, the panel went on to determine whether Mr Hunt’s actions were sexually motivated, which he admitted. On the basis of his conduct and the context in which it occurred, the panel concluded that the appropriate inference to draw was that Mr Hunt, by acting as he did, was sexually motivated in relation to both Pupil A and Pupil J. Mr Hunt was expressly seeking or intimating sexual contact and there was a persistence and even relentlessness to his actions, even when his overtures were not reciprocated. He made express reference to the Pupil A’s and Pupil J’s appearance, to whether they were attrac