Mr Mark Thompson

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

Teacher's name: Mr Mark Thompson

Teacher reference number: 3557904

Teacher's date of birth: 1 June 1990

Location teacher worked: Lincolnshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 and 17 August 2021

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 Thompson, formerly employed in Lincolnshire, East 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 Mark Thompson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark Thompson Teacher ref number: 3557904 Teacher date of birth: 1 June 1990 TRA reference: 19181 Date of determination: 17 August 2021 Former employer: St Bede's Catholic Voluntary Academy, Lincolnshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 16 August 2021, via Microsoft Teams to consider the case of Mr Mark Thompson. The panel members were Mr Ian Carter (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist) and Ms Kulvinder Sandal (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Jacob Rickett of Capsticks LLP. Mr Mark Thompson was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 20 May 2021. It was alleged that Mr Mark Thompson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst employed as a teacher at St Bede's Catholic Voluntary Academy ("the Academy") he: 1. Between around December 2018 to May 2019, in respect of Pupil A, he: a. exchanged messages through social media; b. made inappropriate remarks including as set out in Schedule A; c. sent intimate photographs to Pupil A; d. caused or allowed Pupil A to send intimate photographs to him; e. engaged in a sexual relationship on one or more occasions. 2. His conduct at 1(a) and / or 1(b) and / or 1(c) and / or 1(d) was sexually motivated in that the conduct was in pursuit of a future sexual relationship and / or sexual gratification. 3. On or around 2 May 2019, he failed to adequately or at all to detail his contact with Pupil A as set out in 1. 4. His conduct at 3, was dishonest in that he knew that contact with Pupil A, as set out at 1(a) and / 1(b) and / or 1(c) and / or 1(d) and / or 1(e) had taken place. 5. Between around September 2020 and October 2020, he contacted Pupil A through social media during the course of the TRA's investigation. Schedule A Inappropriate remarks or words to the effect: i. he liked that Pupil A was 17; ii. the relationship with Pupil A was his 'little secret'; iii. Pupil A should call him 'sir'; iv. Pupil A was his 'little puppet'; v. Pupil A should not speak to other people without his permission; vi. he wanted to get Pupil A drunk and / or high; vii. Pupil A was his 'little slut'; viii. he asked Pupil A to bring drugs; ix. details of real and / or imagined sexual encounters. 5 Mr Thompson admitted the facts to all allegations, save for allegation 1(b) and 5, and also that his admitted behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications The presenting officer provided a witness statement from Mr Thompson. Mr Rickett explained that Mr Thompson's representative had sent the witness statement over the weekend and that he had received it on the morning of the hearing. Having considered the content of the witness statement, Mr Rickett confirmed that the TRA was neutral in its stance as to whether the statement was admitted into evidence. The panel considered a witness statement from a teacher in these proceedings to be clearly relevant. There was no particular unfairness to the TRA for the statement to be entered into evidence. The panel also received a preliminary application from Mr Rickett for the hearing to be held in private when the two videos were being played. Mr Rickett explained that the videos displayed personal information of Pupil A, which could not be redacted. The panel accepted that Pupil A, [redacted], should have her anonymity maintained and considered it in the interests of justice to allow the application. The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Thompson. Mr Rickett explained that, as was clear by the supply of Mr Thompson's most recent statement, the teacher was clearly aware of the hearing. In addition, Mr Rickett drew the panel's attention to two emails from Mr Thompson's representative, which stated: • Mr Thompson would not be in attendance at the forthcoming hearing (11 June 2021 email); and • Mr Thompson would not be in attendance at the forthcoming hearing and nor would he be represented (10 August 2021 email). The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the notice of proceedings ("the notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. 6 The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Thompson's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mr Thompson is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. On balance, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Thompson for the reasons given below. Given the express confirmation from Mr Thompson's representative that he was not going to attend, the panel concluded that the hearing should proceed. The panel was satisfied that Mr Thompson's absence was voluntary and he had waived his right to attend. There was no indication that Mr Thompson might attend at a future date, such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. Indeed, the panel noted that within Mr Thompson's latest witness statement (that repeated his expectation that he would not be in attendance), he explained that the proceedings were making him ill, although there was no independent evidence of this, nor any request that the proceedings be adjourned to allow some recovery. In the panel's view, there was an interest, to Mr Thompson himself, for the hearing to proceed and be concluded. The panel also took account of the fact that there is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time and that there was a witness present, who had previously indicated some unwillingness to attend, to give evidence to the panel. The witness would be significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Thompson was neither present nor represented. It had the benefit of Mr Thompson's admissions and his position on those charges that were denied. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, list of key people and anonymised pupil list – pages 4 to 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings – pages 8 to 18 7 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statement – pages 19 to 22 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 23 to 226 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 227 to 242. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • A witness statement from Mr Thompson dated 13 August 2021 and 'signed' with a typed name. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: • Pupil A, on behalf of the TRA. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Thompson had been employed at St. Bede's Catholic Voluntary Academy ('the Academy') as a mathematics teacher since September 2013. His role developed, over time, to include a pastoral role to pupils when Mr Thompson was also appointed to a house leader role. During Mr Thompson's time at the Academy, he taught Pupil A and also provided her with pastoral support in his house leader role. [redacted]. In around December 2018, Pupil A [redacted] was contacted, via social media, by Mr Thompson. Whilst the social media contact was initially general in nature, within a week it developed into a sexual conversation, which culminated in a consensual physical, sexual relationship at the beginning of 2019 that was intermittent but lasted for a few months. [redacted]. As a result, a local investigation was commenced, during which Mr Thompson was interviewed but, initially, denied any relationship with Pupil A. In September 2019, Mr Thompson resigned from his position at the Academy and a referral was made to the TRA, regarding his conduct in January 2020. In September and October 2020, Pup