Mr Martin Gibson

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 Martin Gibson

Teacher reference number: 0162227

Teacher's date of birth: 26 August 1980

Location teacher worked: Leeds, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 02 September 2024 to 03 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 Martin Gibson formerly employed in Leeds, Yorkshire and Humber

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 Martin Gibson: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 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 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Martin Gibson Teacher ref number: 0162227 Teacher date of birth: 26 August 1980 TRA reference: 0021305 Date of determination: 03 September 2024 Former employer: The Grammar School, Leeds Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 September 2024 virtually, to consider the case of Mr Gibson. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist), Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist), Ms Charlotte Kelly (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Leah Redden of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Gibson 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 5 June 2024. It was alleged that Mr Gibson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries and engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, by: a. Communicating with Pupil A via telephone; b. Telling Pupil A he liked her or using words to that effect; c. Kissing Pupil A; d. Meeting Pupil A outside of school hours and/or outside school premises; e. Visiting Pupil A at her house; f. Touching Pupil A’s breasts and/or genital area; g. Allowing Pupil A to touch his genital area; h. Going on holiday with Pupil A in or around 2005. 2. His conduct as may be found proven at 1) above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 3. Despite admitting he left Bancroft’s School as a way to end his relationship with Pupil A, when applying for teaching roles; a. At Worksop College in 2004 he stated he wished to leave Bancroft’s so he could move closer to family and further his professional development undertaking a role with greater responsibilities and; b. At Grammar school at Leeds in 2010 he stated he left Bancroft’s for greater management responsibilities. 4. His conduct if found proven at 3(a)-(b) lacked integrity and/or was dishonest in order to improve his prospects and/or retain a teaching post. By a statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Gibson on 20 December 2023, he has admitted the allegations. 5 Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel is satisfied that TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel is also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel has taken as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel has recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel has noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel noted that Mr Gibson was sent the notice of hearing at least 10 weeks before the hearing. The panel also noted that Mr Gibson had applied for this hearing to take place as a meeting in private as he admitted the allegations and did not intend on attending. This application was refused by the TRA because Mr Gibson had not admitted the allegations until a late stage during the TRA’s referral process. On 26 February 2024 Mr Gibson wrote to the TRA setting out a chronology of his engagement with the TRA and challenging the TRA’s decision to refuse his application for a meeting rather than a hearing. The panel’s observation was that there is no doubt Mr Gibson was aware of the allegations against him prior to this hearing, as well as having been provided with a copy of the bundle by the TRA. In addition, on 19 August 2024, Mr Gibson emailed the presenting officer to confirm that he would not be in attendance at the hearing. Although Mr Gibson is not legally 6 represented, it was the panel’s view that Mr Gibson’s awareness of the hearing and his understanding of the allegations against him were undeniable. The panel therefore considered that Mr Gibson had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was to take place. The panel’s view was that, given the clarity with which Mr Gibson had confirmed he would not be attending, an adjournment was unlikely to result in him attending voluntarily at a later date, whether that be in the near or far future. It was also the panel’s view that Mr Gibson had engaged consistently with the TRA and presenting officer and at no point had indicated that he had or intended to instruct legal representatives. In fact, to the contrary, Mr Gibson clearly wanted this process to conclude as quickly as possible. The panel also considered the disadvantage to Mr Gibson in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. This was a unique case in which the allegations against Mr Gibson only arose from his own, willing and unprompted, disclosure of events that took place approximately 20 years ago. Mr Gibson has also engaged in communication with the presenting officer’s firm in the lead up to this hearing, in relation to the allegations against him. In the lead up to this hearing, Mr Gibson has clearly had and used the opportunity to put forward his position and, as such, the panel has had the benefit of representations made by Mr Gibson. The panel noted that there was only one witness relied upon by the TRA and they were to be called to give evidence. The panel was able to test that evidence in questioning that witness, considering such points as were favourable to Mr Gibson, as were reasonably available on the evidence. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it but the panel agreed that if such gaps arose during the course of the hearing, the panel may take such gaps into consideration in determining whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard Mr Gibson’s account. The panel recognised that the allegations against Mr Gibson are serious and that there was a real risk that, if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend the Mr Gibson ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged was said to have taken place during Mr Gibson’s employment at three schools, namely Bancroft’s School (Redbridge), Worksop College (Worksop), and 7 the School. The schools will have had an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. Finally, the panel noted that there was one witness present at the hearing, who was prepared to give evidence, and that it would have been inconvenient for them to return again. Delaying the case until another time may have impacted on the memories of that witness. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Gibson. The panel considered that in light of Mr Gibson’s waiver of his right to appear, by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible, and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses, that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing today. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 6 Section 2: Notice of Referral, Response and Notice of Hearing – pages 8 to 36 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 38 to 157 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Witness Statements – pages 45 to 157 Section 5: Teacher Regulation Agency Documents – pages 159 to 231 Section 6: Teacher Documents – pages 235 to 238 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents wit