Unknown Teacher

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 reference number:

7956924

Teacher's date of birth:

26 March 1958

Location teacher worked:

Lancashire, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel:

6 June to 7 June 2019

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 Stobart formerly employed in Lancashire, North West England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 6 June to 7 June 2019.

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 Stobart: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Michael Stobart Teacher ref number: 7956924 Teacher date of birth: 26 March 1958 TRA reference: 0017351 Date of determination: 7 June 2019 Former employer: Belmont School, Lancashire A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 6 and 7 June 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Michael Stobart. The panel members were Mr Tony Woodward (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Hilary Jones (lay panellist) and Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Charlotte Wood of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Stephen Hocking of DAC Beachcroft solicitors. Mr Stobart was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 8 April 2019. It was alleged that Mr Stobart was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst a teacher at Belmont School: 1. On 14 October 2016 he inappropriately touched a female member of staff A (incident 1). 2. On either 23 January 2015 or 1 July 2015 he inappropriately touched a female member of staff B (incident 2). 3. On an unknown date after incident 2 he inappropriately touched a female member of staff B (incident 3). 4. Each of the touchings alleged was unwanted and sexual in nature. In the absence of a response from Mr Stobart, the allegations were taken to have not been admitted. C. Preliminary applications Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend allegation 1 by substituting the initials of the member of staff to “member of staff A”. Similarly, the presenting officer applied to amend allegations 2 and 3 to substitute the initials of the member of staff to “member of staff B”. The purpose of the proposed amendment was to grant anonymity to the individuals who raised the allegations against Mr Stobart. Whilst the names of those individuals were not specifically revealed in the allegations, the presenting officer submitted that the identity of the complainants would have been easily identifiable had the initials remained in the allegations. A further application was made to amend the typographical error in allegation 4, to remove the apostrophe from “touchings”. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the panel determined that the proposed amendments to anonymise the identity of the complainants were minor in nature. The amendments did not change the scope or seriousness of the allegations. Furthermore, there was no unfairness or prejudice caused to Mr Stobart in allowing the amendments, despite his not being present at the hearing. The application to amend allegation 4 was permitted on the basis that it was purely to amend a typographical error. 5 Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Stobart The presenting officer applied to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Stobart. In addition, the presenting officer made an application for all or part of this application to be heard in private. The panel heard that the Notice of Proceedings dated 8 April 2019 was sent to Mr Stobart’s last known address. This letter was later returned to the TRA by DX Delivery on 18 April 2019, acknowledging that Mr Stobart no longer resided at that address. The presenting officer provided a brief summary of the history of the attempts made to contact Mr Stobart, since as early as 9 August 2018. The panel heard that the TRA attempted to make contact with Mr Stobart at three separate addresses, one of which was Mr Stobart’s address when he was employed by Belmont School (“the School”). The panel was presented with a “track and trace” proof of service, which confirmed that there was a Royal Mail redirection service in place for Mr Stobart. The panel noted that the Notice of Proceedings was also sent to this address, in addition to subsequent correspondence notifying Mr Stobart of the hearing. The panel was referred to the proof of service which stated that the package was signed for by Mr Stobart at the redirected address although caution was applied when considering this as a determinative factor proving that the correspondence had been received by Mr Stobart himself. The panel heard that the TRA had subsequently made further enquiries of Mr Stobart’s current address (through a trace service), which was again revealed to be the address to which the Notice of Proceedings was sent. The panel heard that the TRA had received reliable evidence which provided further clarification in respect of Mr Stobart’s current address. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the panel announced the decision as follows. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). Furthermore the panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (“the Procedures”). The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was severely constrained. The panel took into account the extent of the enquiries made by the TRA to contact Mr Stobart; in particular, it had sent 6 versions of the same letter to Mr Stobart to the various addresses. In consideration of the evidence before it, the panel was satisfied that Mr Stobart had received the correspondence notifying him of the hearing. The panel therefore considered that the teacher had waived his right to be present at the hearing. 6 The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of continuing with the hearing. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher’s attendance at the hearing and it was in the interests of justice and appropriate to proceed in his absence. The panel also noted that there were a number of witnesses present at the hearing, who were prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and distressing for them to return. It could not be guaranteed that the witnesses would attend again in any event, which would have compromised the case brought by the TRA. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed in the absence of the teacher. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and Identification key and list of roles – page 1 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 2 to 27 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 28 to 39 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 40 to 108 Section 5: Teacher documents – none The panel confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: • Member of Staff A • Witness C – Kitchen Assistant of Belmont School E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 7 The panel confirmed that it had read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Stobart was employed as a Headteacher at the School until on or around 5 April 2017. It was alleged that on three separate occasions Mr Stobart inappropriately touched two members of staff and each of these alleged touchings was unwanted and sexual. For this reason it was alleged that the conduct of Mr Stobart amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct which may bring the profession into disrepute. Findings of fact Our findings of fact were as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations proven, for these reasons: 1. On 14 October 2016 he inappropriately touched a female member of staff A (incident 1). The panel considered the witness statement provided by member of staff A together with her oral witness testimony. The panel heard that Mr Stobart had approached member of staff A on 14 October 2016 from behind, whilst she was in the School kitchen, and proceeded to touch her, inappropriately, on her buttock(s) and then placed his hand between her legs. The panel had regard to the interview notes taken during a meeting to discuss the allegations shortly after it had occurred on 22 November 2016, the content of which was consistent with the evidence provided by member of staff A at the hearing. The panel considered that the delay in reporting the incident was immaterial. Member of staff A believed that she could not report the incident because of Mr Stobart’s senior position at the School but on reflection, due to the impact the incident had on her, she felt she had no other option but to report it.