Mr Mark Perry

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 Perry

Teacher reference number: 9655880

Teacher's date of birth:1 December 1960

Location teacher worked: Elland, west yorkshire

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 June 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 Mark Perry, formerly employed in Elland, west yorkshire.

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 Perry: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed factsS 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark Perry Teacher ref number: 9655880 Teacher date of birth: 1 December 1960 TRA reference: 18206 Date of determination: 14 June 2022 Former employer: The Brooksbank School, Elland Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 June 2022 remotely via Microsoft TEAMS, to consider the case of Mr Perry. The panel members were Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist – in the chair), Miss Sue Davies (lay panellist) and Mrs Sonia Fraser (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan 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 Perry that the allegation(s) be considered without a hearing. Mr Perry provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Perry or his representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of meeting dated 1 June 2022 and agreed statement of facts signed on 20 May 2022. It was alleged that Mr Perry is guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: He was convicted on the 30 April 2021 and sentenced on 28 May 2021 of the following relevant offences: Three counts of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 5 July 2009 and 27 February 2020, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978, S1 (a). Mr Perry admitted the allegation in its entirety. 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 – page 3 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 4 to 14 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 15 to 18 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 34 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 35 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 Perry on 20 May 2022. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Perry 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 Perry had been employed as a Maths Teacher at The Brooksbank School between 1 September 2018 and 28 February 2019. On 27 February 2019, Mr Perry was arrested for accessing child pornography. Following a police investigation, Mr Perry was charged with three offences of Making of Indecent Photographs of Children contrary to Section 1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Perry pleaded guilty to the three offences at Bradford Magistrates Court on 30 April 2021. The matter was committed to Bradford Crown Court for sentencing, due to the seriousness of the offence. On 28 May 2021, Mr Perry received the following sentence: i. Suspended Sentence Order – 9 months custody, suspended for 24 months; ii. Mandatory attendance of 'Maps for Change' course; iii. Up to 50 mandatory Rehabilitation Activity Requirement days; iv. 120 hours of unpaid community service; v. Notification Requirement for a period of 10 years (Sex offenders register); vi. Sexual Harm Prevention Order enforced for 10 years; vii. Costs in the sum of £510; viii. Victim surcharge (amount unknown). Findings of fact The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: You were convicted on the 30 April 2021 and sentenced on 28 May 2021 of the following relevant offences: 1. Three counts of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children between 5 July 2009 and 27 February 2020, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978, S1 (a). The allegation was admitted and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. In particular, the panel noted the Certificate of Conviction and took this as proof of the commission of the offence concerned. The allegation was therefore, found proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence 6 Having found the allegation 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 to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Perry in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Perry 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 Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others  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 noted that Mr Perry's actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting, as the offence involved images of children. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Perry's behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Perry's behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended) and there were considerable community penalties, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This was a case involving an offence of any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one off incidents, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Perry's ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a 7 finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have a punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found all of them to be relevant in this case, namely the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct, and striking the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Perry, which involved a finding that he had been convicted of a relevant offence, which was a serious offence involving child pornography, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Perry were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Perry was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Notwithstanding the clear public interest conside