Mr Michael Feeney

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Michael Feeney

Teacher reference number: 9640298

Teacher's date of birth: 2 September 1955

Location teacher worked: Manchester, north west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 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 Michael Feeney formerly employed in Manchester, north west England.

Mr Michael Feeney: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Michael Feeney Teacher ref number: 9640298 Teacher date of birth: 2 September 1955 TRA reference: 18616 Date of determination: 14 July 2021 Former employer: Spring Lane School, Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 to 14 July 2021 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Michael Feeney. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Claudette Salmon (teacher panellist) and Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Josie Beal of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr David Collins of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Michael Feeney was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 3 June 2021. It was alleged that Mr Feeney was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst a teacher at Spring Lane School: 1. On 6 December 2016, he: (a) grabbed the wrist of Pupil A, (b) twisted the wrist of Pupil A, (c) spoke to Pupil A, using words to the effect of “if I wanted to hurt you, you’d know about it”; 2. On 28 March 2017, he: (a) threatened Pupil B, (b) swore at Pupil B, (c) shouted at Pupil B; 3. On 29 June 2017, he: (a) grabbed the arm of Pupil C, (b) swung Pupil C by his arm, (c) swore at Pupil C, using words to the effect of (i) “fucking idiot”, (ii) “do that again and I’ll fucking twat you”; 4. On 4 July 2017, when de-escalation of an incident involving another pupil was required, he did not take care to avoid physical contact between his hand and the face of Pupil D; 5. By his conduct in the following paragraphs he failed to act within statutory frameworks setting out his professional duties and responsibilities (a) Paragraph 1(a), (b) Paragraph 1(b), 5 (c) Paragraph 3(a), (d) Paragraph 3(b); 6. By his conduct in the following paragraphs he failed to maintain high standards of behaviour; (a) Paragraph 1(c), (b) Paragraph 2, (c) Paragraph 3(c); 7. By his conduct in paragraph 4 he failed to take appropriate steps to safeguard pupils’ well-being Mr Feeney denied the allegations in his response to notice of proceedings dated 28 June 2021. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Feeney was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Feeney. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the notice of proceedings had been sent to Mr Feeney. However, it noted that it had been served on 3 June 2021 and it had not therefore been served 8 weeks before the date of the hearing in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018 (the “Procedures”). On the morning of the hearing, the panel was provided with an email chain between the TRA and Mr Feeney between 27 May 2021 and 2 June 2021. In the email chain, Mr Feeney indicated that he would be prepared to waive the 8 week notice period but that he wanted to firstly view CCTV footage relied upon by the TRA as evidence in this matter. The panel was provided with a separate email chain between Capsticks LLP (the presenting officer firm), Mr Feeney and the TRA between 3 and 21 June 2021 within which Mr Feeney confirmed receipt of a DVD containing the CCTV footage and stated: “I give my agreement for the case to be heard as scheduled”. 6 The panel concluded that Mr Feeney had therefore agreed to waive the 8 week notice period. Mr Feeney had provided a response to the notice of proceedings within which he confirmed that he would not be attending the hearing. The panel was therefore satisfied that Mr Feeney was clearly aware of the hearing. The panel concluded that Mr Feeney’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Feeney had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and had agreed to its scheduling, having had the opportunity to reject this on the grounds of inadequate notice. Further, the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing given that in an email from Mr Feeney to the TRA dated 27 May 2021 he stated: “I wish to see an end to this case as quickly as possible, and as such, I declared my intention not to attend the hearing”. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Feeney was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Feeney was neither present nor represented. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of additional documents. The documents were: Mr Feeney’s response to the notice of proceedings dated 28 June 2021; the email chain between the TRA and Mr Feeney between 27 May 2021 and 2 June 2021; and the email chain between Capsticks LLP, Mr Feeney and the TRA between 3 June 2021 and 21 June 2021. The documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures. Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel considered the additional documents were relevant and it had already considered the additional documents in order to come to the decision as to whether to proceed in Mr Feeney’s absence. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. 7 Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend allegations 2(a) and 2(b) to change the reference to Pupil B to Pupil E. The presenting officer submitted that this was a minor change. The panel noted that Mr Feeney had not been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations. Whilst Mr Feeney had not addressed allegations 2(a) and 2(b) in the documents he had provided in connection with this matter, the presenting officer submitted that Mr Feeney had issued a general denial to the allegations and, therefore, the amendment was unlikely to change his response. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendments would change the nature and scope of the allegations in that the allegations would refer to an entirely different pupil. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments amounted to a material change to the allegations. The panel was also of the view that granting the application for the proposed amendments may cause unfairness and/or prejudice to Mr Feeney on the basis that Mr Feeney had not been informed of the amendments nor had he been given the opportunity to respond to the amended allegations. Accordingly, the panel did not grant this application and considered the original, un- amended allegations, which are set out above. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel had received a bundle of documents which included: • section 1: chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 5 to 7 • section 2: notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 17 • section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 19 to 40 • section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 41 to 565 • section 5: teacher documents – pages 566 to 598 8 In addition, the panel had agreed to accept the following: • Mr Feeney’s response to the notice of proceedings dated 28 June 2021. • The email chain between the TRA and Mr Feeney between 27 May 2021 and 2 June 2021. • The email chain between Capsticks LLP, Mr Feeney and the TRA between 3 June 2021 and 21 June 2021. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel had decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Individual A [Redacted] • Individual B [Redacted] • Individual C [Redacted] • Individual D [Redacted] The teacher was not present at the hearing and therefore did not give oral evidence or call any witnesses to give oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In summary, Mr Feeney (also known as Glenn Fee