Mr Michael Lee

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 Lee

Teacher reference number: 1062010

Teacher's date of birth: 07 November 1985

Location teacher worked: Cambridge, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 09 December 2024 to 10 December 2024

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 Lee formerly employed in Cambridge, East of 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 Lee: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 Contents 2 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 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Michael Lee Teacher ref number: 1062010 Teacher date of birth: 07 November 1985 TRA reference: 18905 Date of determination: 10 December 2024 Former employer: Swaffham Bulbeck Primary School, Cambridgeshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 -10 December by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Michael Lee. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist), Mrs Kate Hurley (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jermel Anderson of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Michael Lee was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 4 September 2024 It was alleged that Mr Michael Lee was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst he was employed as a Teacher at Swaffham Bulbeck Primary School (‘The School) between 1 September 2016 and 25 September 2020: 1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Former Pupil A, including by: a. Being friends with Former Pupil A on Facebook; b. On an unknown date between 6 May 2017 and 12 May 2017: i. Referred to Former Pupil A as ‘stunning’ or words to that effect; ii. Engaged in conversations with Former Pupil A about their romantic relationship; iii. Whilst discussing Former Pupil A’s romantic relationships stated: a. “he didn’t deserve to be with you” or words to that effect; b. “have you slept with your bf” or words to that effect; iv. Attempted to add Former Pupil A on Snapchat; v. Requested a photo of Former Pupil A whilst she was in the bath; vi. Requested a photo of Former Pupil A. when he knew that she was in bed; 2. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil B, in that a. On one or more occasions he hugged Pupil B; b. On one or more occasions he hugged Pupil B so close that his cheek rubbed against Pupil B’s cheek and/or Pupil B could feel his bristles on her cheek; 5 c. On one or more occasions he kissed pupil B on her head; d. He showed favouritism to Pupil B by never telling her off. 3. His conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1 and 2 above was of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated In the absence of Mr Lee, the allegations were not admitted. Mr Lee also made no admission as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Lee The panel heard an application from the TRA’s presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Lee. It heard and accepted legal advice in relation to this application. The panel was advised by the TRA that it had served the bundle, the notice of hearing, and correspondence indicating a change of venue upon Mr Lee’s address within the relevant notice period. The panel had sight of the relevant mail tracking information demonstrating that the documents had been sent to the appropriate address, and that it had been signed for. The panel also noted that Mr Lee had been in correspondence with the TRA in relation to this matter in general terms in 2020 but since then he appeared to have disengaged with the process. The panel noted that the letter confirming the change of venue from an in person hearing to a virtual hearing did not appear to have been delivered to Mr Lee, per the tracking information. However, it was established that Mr Lee had not attended at the TRA building at the designated time and date, and given his other disengagement, it was not plausible that his non-attendance was attributable to him being unaware of the change of venue. The panel was therefore satisfied that there had been appropriate notice of these proceedings. The panel determined that in the circumstances it would be fair to proceed in the absence of Mr Lee. Having consideration for Mr Lee’s disengagement, and his notice of these proceedings, the panel considered that it could infer that he had voluntarily waived his right to attend. Additionally, the panel was mindful of the public interest in proceeding with this matter in an expeditious manner and was also aware of the witness who was scheduled to give evidence before it. Therefore, taking into account all of the circumstances of this matter, the panel determined that when considering fairness, it 6 could appropriately proceed in Mr Lee’s absence. The application was therefore accepted. Application to adduce the hearsay evidence of Pupil B The panel heard an application to introduce the evidence of Pupil B as hearsay evidence. The TRA advised that Pupil B would not be attending to give evidence for several reasons, but that her witness statement, dated 15 April 2023, was relied upon as part of their case. The panel heard and accepted legal advice in respect of this application. The panel determined that the evidence was patently relevant. It therefore focused on the question of fairness. The panel considered that the TRA had made reasonable attempts to secure the attendance of Pupil B. It noted that it had been provided with a good reason for her non-attendance, considering her [REDACTED]. The panel formed the view that the evidence of Pupil B was sole and decisive insofar as it pertained to Allegation 2. It did consider the TRA’s position that there was other police material that it could rely upon in relation to this allegation, however it considered that realistically, it mainly emanated from Pupil B. The panel noted that it had been advised that the TRA had notified Mr Lee of this application, and whilst it had not had sight of this notification, it considered the TRA’s submission that he had been made aware of it and had not responded. The panel was of the view that Pupil B’s evidence was sole and decisive in respect of Allegation 2. It considered that it would therefore have to deal with it in a careful manner. However the panel was of the view that it was testable via other means, due to the presence of other corroborative material, and therefore it felt that it could admit it. The panel was of the view that as sole and decisive evidence, it would need to carefully consider what weight it could attribute to the statement of Pupil B, however it determined that it could safely admit it in the circumstance. The panel therefore allowed the application. Application to Amend Allegation 3 7 The panel heard an application to amend Allegation 3, to read “and/or” rather than “and” in respect of the conjunction between “Allegation 1 and Allegation 2”. The panel also heard and accepted legal advice in respect of this application. The panel considered that this amendment was required to correct a technical deficiency which appeared to have arisen from a typographical error. It did not form the view that it fundamentally changed the nature of the case. Given the way the allegation was to be amended, the panel was satisfied that any risk of prejudice to Mr Lee was significantly limited in scope. The panel therefore allowed the amendment, exercising its discretion with consideration for the interests of justice. Allegation 3 was therefore amended to read: “3. Your conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1 and/or 2 above was of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated” Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 5 Section 2: Notice of hearing – pages 7 to 13 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 15 to 49 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 51 to 179 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 181 to 184 In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Pupil A, who was previously taught by Mr Lee. Mr Lee was not present and therefore, he did not give evidence in these proceedings. 8 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Lee was employed by Swaffham Bulbeck Primary School. In 2017, whilst he was employed by the School as a Designated Safeguarding Lead and Assistant Headteacher, was subject to a disciplinary process concerning an interaction that he had with a former pupil over social media. Pupil A had been in [REDACTED], and that she had previously been taught by Mr Lee in [REDACTED]. The allegation was that Mr Lee had engaged in a series of inappropriate messages with her at this time. The disciplinary process concluded with Mr Lee receiving a written warning. The matter was subsequently revisited when the School joined a multi academy trust who referred the matter to the TRA in 2019. Mr Lee’s employment at the School concluded in 2020. In May 2021, whil