Mr Michael Clark

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 Clark

Teacher reference number: 0304044

Teacher's date of birth: 7 October 1978

Location teacher worked: Coventry, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 6 February 2025 to 10 February 2025

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 Clark formerly employed in Coventry, West Midlands

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 Clark: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Michael Clark Teacher ref number: 03/04044 Teacher date of birth: 7 October 1978 TRA reference: 21359 Date of determination: 10 February 2025 Former employer: Lyng Hall School, Coventry Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 6 -10 February 2025 remotely via MS Teams to consider the case of Mr Michael Clark. The panel members were Stephen Chappell (lay panellist in the chair), Patricia Hunt (former teacher panellist) and Julie Wells (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Alecsandra Manning Rees of Counsel Mr Clark was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded, save for elements of the hearing relating to Mr Clark’s health which were heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 19 November 2024. It was alleged that Mr Clark was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On or around 9 May 2022, he: a) Grabbed and/or pulled and/or twisted Child B’s arm, causing Child B to fall to the floor; b) Held and/or pinned Child B down on the floor with his foot; c) Threw a pen at and/or towards Child B. 2. On unknown date(s) between September 2021 and November 2021, he: a) Touched and/or pressed the collarbone of Child E. 3. On various dates between September 2021 and May 2022 he made comments of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature to and/or in front of pupil(s), as set out in Schedule A. 4. On various dates between November 2021 and May 2022, he fell asleep during lessons(s) and/or an examination that he was supervising. 5. By way of his conduct at paragraph 1a) and/or 1b) and/or 2a), he made inappropriate contact and/or used unreasonable physical force with Child B and/or Child E. Schedule A: i. “faggot” and/or “fag”, or words to that effect; ii. “fuck”, or words to that effect; iii. “pussy” and/or “you are a pussy, and not even the good kind like your mum has”, or words to that effect; iv. “bastard”, or words to that effect; v. “fat twat”, or words to that effect; vi. That you are “fucking untouchable”, or words to that effect; vii. “I one handed kicked his ass, stood on his neck, job is a dunun, I have a tea on my arm though, it is hard to do it with one hand”, or words to that effect; viii. “I do not need to wank off, I will just get your mum to suck me” and/or “your mum sucked me off”, or words that effect; ix. “I’m usually in front your mum, not behind”, or words to that effect; 5 x. “maybe I’ll ring your mum up she seems to love my phone calls”, or words to that effect; xi. Referred to a pupil(s) as “pigeon chested”, or words to that effect; xii. “I don’t use one finger I use two”, or words to that effect. Mr Clark has not formally responded to the allegations and has therefore neither admitted the allegations nor denied them. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Clark. The panel was satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the notice of proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. i) The hearing was originally listed for August 2024. This was postponed following Mr Clark communicating with the TRA and indicating that he intended to participate but was unavailable for the listed dates because he was on a pre - arranged holiday. Since August 2024, the TRA has received no further 6 communication from Mr Clark despite numerous emails being sent to him asking him to engage. Mr Clark was sent a revised notice of proceedings by email on 19 November 2024. Based on the information provided, the email address used for Mr Clark had not changed. The panel was also shown evidence that Mr Clark had signed for the notice of proceedings that was also sent by special delivery and received by him on 20 November 2024. The panel was satisfied that Mr Clark was aware of these proceedings; has had a longer period to prepare for the proceedings if he wanted to engage in light of the lengthy adjournment; and has chosen to disengage with the TRA. The panel therefore considered that Mr Clark has waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. ii) The panel considered whether another adjournment might result in Mr Clark attending voluntarily. In light of Mr Clark failing to respond to the TRA over a sustained period of time, the panel considered that Mr Clark was choosing not to engage, and this is not a case where he was simply unable to attend because of, for example, unforeseen circumstances. It was therefore unlikely that a further adjournment would result in Mr Clark’s attendance. iii) If the panel was to adjourn this hearing, it is likely that the next available date would not be soon. It has already taken approximately five to six months to reconvene. Further, Mr Clark has expressed no intention to instruct representation to appear on his behalf. iv) The panel was also mindful that the allegations relate to matters dating back to September 2021. The panel recognises that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged is said to have taken place whilst Mr Clark was employed at the School. Naturally, the School will have an interest in this hearing taken place in order to move forwards. v) The panel also considered the extent of the disadvantage to Mr Clark in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel may take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard Mr Clark’s account. 7 vi) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. vii) The panel also noted that there were 2 witnesses who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and distressing for the hearing to be rearranged. Delaying the case may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Clark. The panel considered that in light of Mr Clark’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing today. Hearsay Under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that the witness statement of Witness 3 was relevant to the case because it provided a witness account relating to allegations 1a) and 1b). The central question for the panel was whether it was fair in the circumstances to allow evidence to be put forward by the presenting officer without the opportunity for the evidence to be tested before the panel. The panel took account of the efforts made to secure the attendance of the witness and concluded that the TRA had not been able to obtain a response from Witness 3