Mr Michael Baker

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 Michael Baker

Teacher reference number: 4032773

Teacher's date of birth: 18 May 1990

Location teacher worked: Wickford, East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 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 Michael Baker, formerly employed in Wickford, East 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 Michael Baker: 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 4 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 Michael Baker Teacher ref number: 4032773 Teacher date of birth: 18 May 1990 TRA reference: 20848 Date of determination: 17 October 2023 Former employer: North Crescent Primary School, Wickford Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 October 2023 by virtual means to consider the case of Mr Mike Baker. The panel members were Mr Clive Ruddle (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Aisha Miller (teacher panellist) and Mrs Karen Graham (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. 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 Baker that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Baker 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 Ms Clare Hastie of Kingsley Napley LLP, or Mr Baker. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 27 September 2023. It was alleged that Mr Baker was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher at North Crescent Primary School: 1. On or around 02 May 2022, he downloaded and/or made an indecent image and/or video, namely a category A indecent image of a child. 2. On or around 14 August 2022, he accepted a police caution in relation to the conduct as set out at paragraph 1 above which is contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Baker admitted the alleged facts and that it amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 17 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 18 to 20 Section 4: Teaching regulation agency Documents – pages 21 to 92 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 93 to 101 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 Baker on 12 July 2023. 5 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 Baker 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 Baker was employed by North Crescent Primary School (the “School”) from 1 January 2018 as a learning support assistant and from 1 September 2019 as a teacher. On 28 May 2022, Mr Baker was arrested in respect of an allegation of downloading an indecent image of a child. On 14 August 2022, Mr Baker accepted a police caution in relation to downloading an indecent image of a child. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against Mr Baker proved, for these reasons: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher at North Crescent Primary School: 1. On or around 02 May 2022, you downloaded and/or made an indecent image and/or video, namely a category A indecent image of a child. 2. On or around 14 August 2022, you accepted a police caution in relation to the conduct as set out at paragraph 1 above which is contrary to sections 1(1)(a) and 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel has seen evidence that Mr Baker has uploaded a video classed as category A indecent image of a child to his Google Cloud. The National Crime Agency (“NCA”) determined the IP address to Mr Baker’s home. The NCA questioned Mr Baker under caution on the allegation of downloading a category A indecent image of a child. During the interview, Mr Baker admitted to downloading an indecent image. Mr Baker admitted to watching one minute of the video, after which he watched a different video afterwards, not related to the allegations. On 14 August 2022, Mr Baker accepted a police caution in relation to the category A indecent image stated above, which the panel has seen within the evidence. Mr Baker has been placed on the sex offenders register for a period of 2 years. 6 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The allegations did not occur within the education setting or involve pupils and therefore the panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Mr Baker, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards, KCSIE, Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel did not, therefore, consider that Mr Baker’s conduct fell significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher as set out within the Teachers’ Standards, KCSIE, Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel also considered whether Mr Baker’s acceptance of a caution displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that the offence of any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one-off incidents was relevant. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel noted that the allegations took place outside the education setting. However, Mr Baker did receive a caution for viewing an indecent photograph or image of a child. This, therefore, impacts his perception as a teacher with the public. The panel also considered that the category A image that Mr Baker viewed contained a six-year-old, the same age range as he was teaching at the time. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Baker was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others, the responsibilities and duties of teachers in relation to the safeguarding and welfare of pupils and considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that 7 teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel also considered whether Mr Baker’s acceptance of a caution displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that the offence of any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one-off incidents, was relevant. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. The panel considered that Mr Baker’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. The panel, therefore, found that Mr Baker’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Having found the facts of particulars 1 and 2 proved, the panel further found that Mr Baker’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go