Mr Matthew Gaute

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 Gaute

Teacher reference number: 1546279

Teacher's date of birth: 03 April 1990

Location teacher worked: Slough, South East of England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 July 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 Gaute, formerly employed in Slough, South East of England.

Mr Matthew Gaute: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2022 2 3 4 5 5 5 Contents Introduction Allegations Summary of evidence Documents Statement of agreed facts Decision and reasons 5 7 11 Findings of fact Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Gaute Teacher ref number: 1546279 Teacher date of birth: 03 April 1990 TRA reference: 0019455 Date of determination: 17 July 2023 Former employer: Priory School Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 July 2023 to consider the case of Mr Gaute. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist) and Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Eleanor Brown of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Gaute that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Gaute confirmed by email dated 10 July 2023 that he was willing for the panel to hear his case as a meeting without his attendance in private. Mr Gaute provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute dated 20 June 2023. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ian Brook of Capsticks solicitors, or Mr Gaute. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 10 July 2023. It was alleged that Mr Gaute was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On or around 25 November 2019, he produced to the Priory School an undated falsified letter which purported to be following a conversation on 21 November in the name of a Person A; 2. On or around 2 December 2019, he produced to the Priory School a falsified letter dated 28 November 2019 which purported to be in the name of a Person A; 3. On or around 11 December 2019, he produced to the Priory School a screenshot of a falsified undated email which purported to be in the name of a Person A; 4. On or around 7 January 2020, he produced to the Priory School a falsified letter dated 13 December 2019 which purported to be in the name of a Consultant Oncologist, Person B; 5. On or around 7 January 2020, he produced to the Priory School a copy of falsified email that appeared to be dated 22 January and purported to be in the name of Person C; 6. Between 27 November 2019 and 10 January 2020 in meetings with the Priory School, he made untrue statements regarding the emails and documents referred to at allegations 1 – 4 above in that: a. On 27 November, he made statements to the effect; i. That Person A and or Person D were based at the Mount Vernon Medical Centre; ii. That Person A had typed the letter referred to in Allegation 1 above and signed it in his presence; b. On 5 December 2019, he made statements to the effect: i. That Person A printed the letter referred to in Allegation 2 above and gave it to him; c. On 10 January 2020, he made statements to the effect: i. That the email referred to in Allegation 3 above was sent to him by Person A; 5 ii. That the letter referred to in Allegation 4 was sent to him by Person B. 7. Mr Gaute’s conduct as set out at allegations 1 – 6 above was dishonest. The panel noted Mr Gaute admitted the allegations and further admitted that the above allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 7 to 39 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations - pages 40 to 50 Section 4:Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 51 to 67 Section 5: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 68 to 410 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 411 to 426 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 Gaute dated 20 June 2023. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Gaute 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. 6 Mr Gaute was initially employed by the Priory School from 2 September 2012 as a teaching assistant. He was later employed as a teacher from 1 September 2015. In July 2018, Mr Gaute notified Priory School that he had been diagnosed with myeloma, a blood cancer. Mr Gaute informed the Priory School that his treatment (six chemotherapy sessions) would begin over the 2018 summer holidays. The Priory School referred Mr Gaute to occupational health with no reference to Mr Gaute’s medical records. The Priory School requested medical evidence from Mr Gaute’s GP and / or hospital. In June 2019, Mr Gaute confirmed to the Priory School that his myeloma had returned and that he would be required to begin a 14 week course of chemotherapy and radiotherapy. A second occupational health referral was made on 5 July 2019 and Mr Gaute was assessed as being fit to work with no adjustments required. In November 2019, the Priory School developed suspicions regarding claims by Mr Gaute about his treatment and his disclosed illness. The Priory School made enquiries with a Macmillan (specialist oncology) nurse regarding the accuracy of Mr Gaute’s illness. The Macmillan nurse had no knowledge of the treatment plan described to the Priory School by Mr Gaute. A further occupational health referral was made by the Priory School on 28 November 2019 to seek advice on his illness. Mr Gaute refused consent for occupational health to contact or request information from his GP and / or the hospital. In the period between diagnosis in July 2018 and December 2019 Mr Gaute reported to the Priory School that he underwent three rounds of intensive chemotherapy and radiation. In that period Mr Gaute was absent from work for one day through sickness and 3.8 days which were planned absences for treatment. Mr Gaute provided no medical evidence to the Priory School regarding his medical treatments throughout this treatment period. On 20 November 2019, Mr Gaute was requested to provide medical evidence to the Priory School at a return to work interview. Mr Gaute provided a medical letter dated 21 November 2019 from the East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust. Following receipt of the letter, the Priory School developed a suspicion as to whether the letter was authentic and commenced an investigation. The Priory School made an enquiry with East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust, specifically at Mount Vernon Cancer Centre to determine whether Persons A and D (identified within Mr Gaute’s correspondence) had been employed by the NHS Trust. The NHS Trust confirmed neither Persons A nor D had been / were currently employed. Following a further investigative meeting, on 2 December 2019, Mr Gaute was suspended from employment at the Priory School. Following a disciplinary process, Mr Gaute was dismissed by the Priory School on 3 February 2020 for gross misconduct relating to this matter. Mr Gaute was referred to the TRA on 23 July 2020. 7 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 25 November 2019, you produced to the Priory School an undated falsified letter which purported to be following a conversation on 21 November in the name of a Person A; The panel reviewed a copy of the letter produced by Mr Gaute in the name of Person A on or around 25 November 2019. Further, the panel took into consideration the admission by Mr Gaute within the statement of agreed facts dated 20 June 2023 that the letter was falsified. The panel noted the admission was supported by irregularities in the drafting of the letter specifically, that the letter was undated, on plain, not hospital headed paper and Mr Gaute’s NHS number was only 7 digits long (rather than 10 digits). It was noted the NHS number provided was also incorrect when compared to another NHS number provided by Mr Gaute. The panel further noted the IT evidence provided which noted the draft letter had been saved on Mr Gaute’s laptop and had been created by him. Therefore, the panel found the allegation proven. 2. On or around 2 December 2019, you produced to the Priory School a falsified letter dated 28 November 2019 which purported to be in the name of a Person A; The panel reviewed a copy of the letter produced by Mr Gaute dated 28 November 2019 in the name of Person A. Further, the panel took into consideration an admission by Mr Gaute within the statement of agreed facts dated 20 June 2023 that the letter was falsified. The panel noted the admission was supported by Person A not being a GMC registered