Mr Matthew Sides

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 Matthew Sides

Teacher reference number: 3773801

Teacher's date of birth: 18 March 1993

Location teacher worked: Hartlepool, north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 29 July 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 Matthew Sides, formerly employed in Hartlepool, north east England .

Mr Matthew Sides: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2021 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 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 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 Matthew Sides Teacher ref number: 3773801 Teacher date of birth: 18 March 1993 TRA reference: 18328 Date of determination: 29 July 2021 Former employer: Eldon Grove Academy, Hartlepool Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 29 July 2021 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Matthew Sides. The panel members were Mr Alf Bean (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Charlotte McCallum (lay panellist) and Mr Chris Major (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Robert Kellaway 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 Sides that the allegations be considered without a hearing. A signed statement of agreed facts had been agreed in advance of the meeting. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Tamy Conn of Fieldfisher LLP; Mr Sides; or any representative of Mr Sides. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 5 July 2021. It was alleged that Mr Sides was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a teacher at Eldon Grove Academy: 1. In or around January 2019 he engaged in sexual activity with Child A. 2. In or around February 2019 he engaged in sexual activity with Child A. 3. By his conduct at paragraph 1, he failed to uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside of school. Mr Sides admitted the facts of allegations 1 to 3 and that his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as set out in his response to notice of referral form dated 15 December 2020 and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Sides on 19 May 2021. 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, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 1 to 3 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 4 to 8b • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 9 to 12 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 13 to 102 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 103 to 143 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 Sides on 19 May 2021 and which had been signed on behalf of a presenting officer on 27 May 2019. 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 Sides 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. Mr Sides was employed as a teacher at Eldon Grove Academy (“the School”) from September 2016 until he was dismissed on 10 July 2019. The School is a co-educational primary school which caters for pupils aged 3 to 11. Prior to his dismissal by the School, Mr Sides had been a Year 3 teacher. In or around January 2019, Mr Sides met Child A via the Grindr app (marketed as a social networking app for gay, bi, trans and queer people). Mr Sides and Child A exchanged messages on Grindr including pictures of their faces and arranged to meet. In or around January 2019, Mr Sides picked up Child A in his car and drove to a location where they engaged in sexual activity. Mr Sides has said he believed Child A was 16 as Child A told him he was during their initial messages on Grindr. Child A admitted to the police that he told Mr Sides, on one occasion, that he was 16 years of age. In or around February 2019, Mr Sides arranged to meet Child A again. Mr Sides picked up Child A in his car and drove to Mr Sides’ house. Mr Sides and Child A engaged in sexual activity at Mr Sides’ house. Child A told the police during their investigations that the encounters and sexual activity were consensual and without pressure. On 16 April 2019, Mr Sides called the police and made a voluntary confession that he had engaged in sexual activities with Child A having been told by Child A’s parents that Child A was actually 14. Mr Sides was arrested on the night of 16 April 2019. On 17 April 2019, Mr Sides was released by the police and he emailed the School to inform them of the criminal allegations against him and that the police were currently 6 investigating the matter. Mr Sides was placed on a paid leave of absence on 18 April 2019 and was later suspended. A Local Authority Designated Officer meeting was held on 1 May 2019. The School held an investigation meeting on 17 May 2019. A disciplinary meeting was held on 10 July 2019 at which Mr Sides’ employment with the School was terminated without notice. The matter was referred to the TRA by the School on 12 July 2019. The police decided to take no further action against Mr Sides. The TRA issued Mr Sides with an interim prohibition order on 7 February 2020. 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. In or around January 2019 you engaged in sexual activity with Child A. 2. In or around February 2019 you engaged in sexual activity with Child A. The panel noted that in the response to the notice of referral form dated 15 December 2020 and in the statement of agreed facts, which Mr Sides had signed on 19 May 2021, Mr Sides had admitted the facts of allegations 1 and 2. Notwithstanding that being the case, the panel made its own determination on the facts of the allegations on all of the evidence before it. The panel concluded that the evidence within the bundle supported the statement of agreed facts. In particular, the panel noted: the transcript of the police interview with Mr Sides, the statement taken from Child A by the police, the notes of the School’s investigation meeting dated 17 May 2019, the police incident report and Mr Sides’ witness statement and representations. All of these documents supported the fact that Mr Sides had engaged in sexual activity with Child A in January 2019 and in February 2019. The panel also noted that Mr Sides’ account had been consistent and detailed throughout the investigation and he had been honest in admitting his conduct to the police and the School. The panel found that in January 2019, Child A performed oral sex on Mr Sides whilst he was in Mr Sides’ car. The car was parked on a road at the time. Mr Sides had initially driven to a local car park but had moved on as another car was in the car park at the time. In February 2019, the sexual activity took place at Mr Sides’ house. 7 Mr Sides and Child A had performed oral sex on each other. The panel noted that Mr Sides had stated he had performed penetrative sex on Child A but that Child A had denied this when he was interviewed by the police. On the balance of probabilities, the panel preferred the evidence of Mr Sides on this point of fact. Mr Sides’ had given a consistent and detailed account of events in his interviews with the police and the School at the time. Mr Sides had also been open and honest in making his admissions to the School and the police. The panel conceived there was no reason or motivation to support a finding that Mr Sides had dishonestly admitted to performing this sexual act with Child A. The panel therefore found that Mr Sides had engaged in penetrative sex with Child A in February 2019 whilst Child A was at his house. The panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Sides had believed Child A had been 16 when he had engaged in sexual activity with Child A. However, the panel considered that Mr Sides had completely neglected his duty, as the adult and as a teacher, to take steps to ensure that Child A was in fact 16. The panel was concerned by the evidence in how the issue of Child A’s age had come about. It had been Child A who had said he was 16. The evidence given by Mr Sides in his police interview was that he had responded to this with words the along the lines of ‘As long as you are 16 you’re legal that’s fine’ ‘he went yes and I, truly believed that he was.’ The panel also noted that it appeared Mr Sides had noted that Child A appeared to be drinking alcohol in one of his pictures. Child A was not of the legal drinking age (and would not have been even if he were 16) and this should have served as a further warning to Mr Sides that the conduct he was embarking on was wholly i