Mr Matthew Edwards

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 Matthew Edwards

Teacher reference number: 1647416

Teacher's date of birth: 27 May 1997

Location teacher worked: Torquay, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 October 2023

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 Matthew Edwards, formerly employed in Torquay, South West England.

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 Matthew Edwards: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2023 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 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 Matthew Edwards Teacher ref number: 1647416 Teacher date of birth: 27 May 1997 TRA reference: 19614 Date of determination: 24 October 2023 Former employer: Homelands Primary School Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 October 2023 remotely via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Edwards. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist) and Mr Peter Whitelock (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Sarah Price 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 Edwards that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Edwards provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Mr Edwards. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 10 August 2023. It was alleged that Mr Edwards convicted and sentenced on 30 September 2022 at Exeter Crown Court of the following relevant offence: 1. Three counts of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 14/3/20. 2. Two counts of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 14/3/20. 3. One count of making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 15/12/18-6/11/20. Mr Edwards admitted the facts and conviction of a relevant offence. 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 anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 27b Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 28 to 31 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 32 to 50 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 51 to 61 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Edwards on 6 July 2023. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Edwards for the allegation 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 Edwards had been employed as a teacher at Homelands Primary School (“the School”) between 1 September 2018 and 22 April 2019. Between 13 October 2020 and 26 November 2020, he was employed as a supply cover teacher at Haytor View School. On 14 July 2022, Mr Edwards appeared at the South and West Devon Magistrates Court where he pleaded guilty to the charges against him. On 30 September 2022, Mr Edwards was sentenced at Exeter Crown Court to a period of imprisonment for 12 months, suspended for 24 months. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: You were convicted and sentenced on 30 September 2022 at Exeter Crown Court of the following relevant offence: 1. Three counts of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on 14/3/20. 2. Two counts of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 14/3/20. 3. One count of making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 15/12/18-6/11/20. 6 The allegation was admitted and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. In particular, the panel accepted the certificate of conviction as proof of the commission of the offences. Therefore, the allegation was found proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation 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 Edwards in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Edwards 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 having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.  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 Edwards’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Edwards’ behaviour in committing the offence would 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 Edwards’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offence committed. 7 This was a case involving an offence of 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 was not provided with any evidence of mitigating circumstances. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Edwards’ ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that the 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 a number 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 that prohibition strikes the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest, if they are in conflict. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the serious findings of a conviction. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession would be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Edwards were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. 8 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 Edwards was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Edwards. In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Edwards. The panel took further account of the Ad