Mr Michael Good

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 Good

Location teacher worked: Stockport, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 October 2024 to 16 October 2024

Outcome type: No order made

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 Good formerly employed in Stockport, North West 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 Good: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision Teacher: Mr Michael Good TRA reference: 21057 Date of determination: 16 October 2024 Former employer: St Anne’s Roman Catholic High School, Stockport Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 14 to 16 October 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Michael Good. The panel members were Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist – in the chair), Miss Rachel Curry (lay panellist) and Mrs Emma Garrett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr John Morrison of QEB Hollis Whiteman. Mr Good 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 5 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Good was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a supply teacher at St Anne’s Roman Catholic Voluntary Academy: 1. On around 17 September 2021, he a) Smacked and/or hit Pupil A on the arm and/or shoulder b) Said to and/or about Pupil A that he was “a pathetic loser”, or words to that effect; c) Jabbed and/or poked Pupil B in the arm with a pen. Mr Good denied allegations 1a), 1b) and 1c), as set out in the response to notice of hearing, signed by Mr Good on the 13 March 2024. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Good was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Good. 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 Good in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr Good’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Good had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Good was unfit to attend the 5 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 Good was neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 • Section 2: Notice of hearing – pages 6 to 24 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 25 to 30 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 31 to 158 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 159 to 180 • Service bundle – 15 pages The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Pupil A • Witness A, [REDACTED] • Witness B, [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 6 On 17 September 2021, Mr Good commenced employment at St Anne’s Roman Catholic Voluntary Academy (‘the School’). The alleged incident occurred, and Mr Good is asked to leave the School site. On 28 January 2022, a LADO meeting was held. On 20 June 2022, Mr Good was found not guilty for the offence of battery at Greater Manchester Magistrates Court. On 13 July 2022, a LADO meeting was held. On 31 August 2022 the matter was referred to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On around 17 September 2021, you a) Smacked and/or hit Pupil A on the arm and/or shoulder The panel considered the witness statement of Pupil A, who stated that on 17 September 2021, he completed a handwritten incident reporting form at the School regarding an incident with Mr Good that occurred during the lesson. He stated that he also provided a witness statement to the police. Pupil A stated that within the statement he gave a detailed account of what happened during the lesson with Mr Good, and that, given the passage of time, he cannot recall the date he provided this statement to the police. Pupil A stated that Mr Good was charged with assault, and he gave evidence at court via video link. He stated that the court ruled that there was not actually enough evidence to convict Mr Good of assault. The panel considered the oral evidence from Pupil A which was that Mr Good had “hit [his] left shoulder” when he was sat down turning around to “help a mate” (from the row behind) by speaking to him over his right shoulder whilst he was sat behind him. Pupil A said that Mr Good was writing on the whiteboard at the front of the class at the time but that he came over and “hit [him] with his palm…on his left shoulder” and then Mr Good started saying how “he would have been hit harder than that when he was at school”. The panel considered the incident report form completed by Pupil A on 17 September 2021. Pupil A stated on the incident report form that he was sat in maths, talking to Pupil B and whilst Mr Good was going through a question, he poked Pupil B in the arm with his whiteboard pen and said to face the front. He stated that they carried on talking and Mr Good then did it to him with his hand. Pupil A described this as more than a tap but less than a thump, and stated that there was a small bruise about the size of a 10p coin. 7 Pupil A stated he said “ow that hurts” and Mr Good started mocking him, waving his arms around. The panel considered Mr Good’s statement regarding the incident, where he stated that during period 2 on the 17 September 2021 he was teaching maths to a [REDACTED] class. He stated that there was a boy sitting at the front of the class who kept turning around and talking. Mr Good stated that he had to tell this student to sit straight and face the front, stop talking and write down the notes many times during the class. He stated that as he didn’t know the individual boy’s name, and he did not respond to his request to be quiet, he tapped the student on the arm with his pen to get his attention. Mr Good commented that he did not respond to him when he asked him to turn around and be quiet approximately five times. Mr Good stated that the boy started pretending that this hurt his arm where he had his vaccination, and he was reminded by another student that he had had his vaccination there 2 weeks ago and this should not have hurt. He stated that the boy was trying to wind him up so he mimicked his reaction in an overly dramatic way to get the boy to defuse the situation with humour. The panel also considered Mr Good’s written response to the allegations. Mr Good stated that in relation to allegation 1a), after about 10 minutes the talking resumed with Pupil A who turned his seat to face Pupil B and put his right side towards him at the front of the class. He stated that this time he tapped Pupil A on the shoulder as he had done with Pupil B with the marker pen and he put his fingers on his lips to tell Pupil A to be quiet. Mr Good stated that he did not know Pupil A’s name and therefore could not say “Pupil A please be quiet”, so he had to single out who he was directing his comment to and used the tap to get Pupil A’s attention before making the “be quiet” signal. Mr Good explained that Pupil A became louder, Pupil B was making noises and comments about what had just happened that were meant for him and the class to hear. He stated that this made teaching almost impossible. Mr Good stated that he heard Pupil A say out loud that he had just been assaulted because he had touched where he had a jab in his arm recently. He stated that he heard Pupil B say that Pupil A’s jab had been on the other arm and laughed about it. Mr Good submitted that Pupil A then started to confront him saying that he was going to get his [REDACTED] to call the police and get him sacked for assaulting him. Mr Good stated in his written response that he did not hit or assault Pupil A or Pupil B. The panel also considered the witness statement and oral evidence of Witness A which was that she had not seen anything physically happen to Pupil A although she had heard raised voices from her classroom across the corridor. Witness A stated that she saw Mr Good arching over the children across a desk but did not see anything physical happen. She just heard Mr Good raising his voice and using inappropriate language in an aggressive manner. 8 The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness B who could recall Pupil A having said that Mr Good p