Mr Martin James

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 James

Teacher reference number: 22131

Teacher's date of birth: 05 March 1984

Location teacher worked: Bournemouth

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 October 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 James formerly employed in Bournemouth .

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 James: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 3 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Martin James Teacher ref number: 0968676 Teacher date of birth: 5 March 1984 TRA reference: 22131 Date of determination: 25 October 2024 Former employer: Bearwood Primary & Nursery School, Bournemouth Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 25 October 2024 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Martin James. The panel members were Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist) and Mrs Jessica Sheldrick (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts 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 James that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr James 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 Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks LLP, Mr James or any representative for Mr James. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 18 October 2024. It was alleged that Mr James was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He failed to disclose information regarding his employment history as follows; 4 a. In his application to Bearwood School, he did not disclose his previous employment at Epiphany School; b. In his application to Bearwood School he did not disclose his previous employment at St Luke’s Church of England Primary School; and c. He falsely stated to Bearwood School that during the period from July 2020 to March 2022 he was not working at any school. 2. His conduct as may be found proven at 1a, 1b and/or 1c above; a. Lacked integrity; and/or b. Was dishonest Mr James admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2(a) and 2(b), as set out in the statement of agreed facts. Mr James also admitted that his actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. However, the panel noted at the outset that there were two different meeting bundles. Upon investigating this matter further with the TRA and the presenting officer via the TRA, the panel satisfied itself that there had been no change to the allegations (having referred this to the presenting officer and as confirmed by the presenting officer that the allegations had not been amended at any time). Further, the panel satisfied itself that Mr James had received all documentation relevant to the case in an uncorrupted format, including the Witness Statement of Witness A. Accordingly, the panel was happy to proceed with the meeting. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 20 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 21 to 30 5 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 31 to 40 • Section 5: TRA documents – pages 41 to 218 • Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 219 to 220 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 James on 21 September 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 3 October 2024. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr James 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. Between September 2020 and November 2020 Mr James was employed at the Epiphany School. Between January 2021 and March 2022, Mr James was employed at St Luke’s Church of England Primary School. Between September 2022 and April 2023, Mr James was employed at Bearwood Primary and Nursery School (‘the School’). In February 2023, St Luke’s Church of England Primary School informed the School of Mr James’ dismissal after failing to declare his previous employment. On 14 June 2023 a referral was received by the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. You failed to disclose information regarding your employment history as follows; 6 a. In your application to Bearwood School, you did not disclose your previous employment at Epiphany School; b. In your application to Bearwood School you did not disclose your previous employment at St Luke’s Church of England Primary School; and c. You falsely stated to Bearwood School that during the period from July 2020 to March 2022 you were not working at any school. The panel considered Mr James’ application form to the School, and noted that Epiphany School and St Luke’s Church of England Primary School (‘St Luke’s) had not been listed on the form. The form stated ‘a continuous employment history is required from when you left full time education.’ The panel noted that within his statement in support of the application form, Mr James had stated ‘since the end of this contract in 2020, I have been providing one-to-one tuition for children locally as well as taking the decision to provide childcare for my own two children [REDACTED]. However, I now feel the time is right to get back into the classroom to resume my career with renewed passion and vigour.’ The panel considered the written statement of Witness A, who stated that he was instructed by Witness B to investigate concerns raised by St Luke’s that no reference request had been made to them during the teachers’ recruitment process at the School. He stated that St Luke’s reported that Mr James had been employed there from January 2021 to 18 March 2022. Witness A stated that he asked St Luke’s for information regarding Mr James’ employment there, and he was also informed about Epiphany School so he contacted them to better understand Mr James’ employment history and gap in employment. Witness A stated that Mr James did not attend the investigation meeting on 7 March 2023, and did not attend the disciplinary hearing on 26 April 2023. The panel considered the written statement of Witness B who was [REDACTED]. Witness B set out that on 20 March 2022, the School received Mr James’ application form for a class teacher position. She stated that Mr James was offered the role which commenced on 1 September 2022. Witness B explained that shortly after starting his role, Mr James went off sick from 3 October 2022 to 21 October 2022, and from 31 October 2022 he went off sick again until 14 November 2022. 7 Witness B stated that on the 8 February 2020 she was away from the School on an [REDACTED], and that whilst she was away the [REDACTED] received a call from Witness C of St Luke’s. Witness B stated that on 9 February the [REDACTED] emailed the HR team with further details of the call stating that Mr James had previously been employed by St Luke’s. The panel considered the written statement of Witness D, the [REDACTED] of Epiphany School. She confirmed that Mr James worked at Epiphany School from September 2020 to November 2020, when he resigned. The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, admissions of Mr James, written statement of Witness A and the application form. The panel found that Mr James had failed to disclose information regarding his employment history for having taught at both Epiphany and St Luke’s Schools. The panel further found that Mr James had falsely stated to the School that he was not working at any school during the period from July 2020 to March 2022 during his interview. The panel also considered that Mr James had done so deliberately, and this was confirmed by Mr James in his written submissions. The panel also considered that Mr James had either omitted information or given false information on more than one occasion at varying stages of the recruitment process and about more than one matter regarding his employment history. The panel noted the account given by Mr James that this was not the first time he had omitted employment history information during an application process for a teaching position. The panel found allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) proven. 2. Your conduct as may be found proven at 1a, 1b and/or 1c above; a. Lacked integrity; and/or The panel considered the case of Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority. The panel considered that Mr James had failed to act within the higher standards expected of a teacher by failing to disclose his employment at