Mr Mike Turner

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 Mike Turner

Teacher reference number: 7268815

Teacher's date of birth: 20 April 1954

Location teacher worked: Warwickshire, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 02 December 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 Mike Turner formerly employed in Warwickshire, 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 Mike Turner: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 26 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 29 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mike Turner Teacher ref number: 7268815 Teacher date of birth: 20 April 1954 TRA reference: 14988 Date of determination: 10 December 2024 Former employer: River House School, Warwickshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened between 2 to 10 December 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Turner. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Heather Andersen of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Turner was not present and not represented. [REDACTED] The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 23 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Turner was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent the improper use of school funds, in that; a) Between 2006 and 2015 he received and/or accepted one or more payments of ‘Recruitment and Retention’ up to approximately £36,000 when he knew or should reasonably have known he was only entitled to receive such payments for a period of 1 year, between 1 April 2005 to 31 March 2006. b) He failed to inform the School Governors of the ‘Independent Learning Provision’ budget; c) Between 2006 and 2015 he authorised one or more payments to be made to Individual D which he knew or ought reasonably to have known he was not entitled to and/or which he knew or ought reasonably to have known were excessive, including but not limited to i. Authorisation of the provision of a car under the Warwickshire County Council Car Lease Scheme at the cost of approximately £16,700. ii. Authorisation of excessive and/or unnecessary claims for mileage expenses in the sum of approximately £21,000. iii. Authorisation of excessive and/or unnecessary claims for payment of overtime in the sum of approximately £174,419, without the necessary approval from the Governing Body. iv. Authorisation of continuing payment in the sum of approximately £4,967 in payment for duties Individual D was no longer responsible for, nor performing, as he was doing so. v. Authorisation of excessive and/or unnecessary claims for hotel accommodation in the sum of approximately £739.56. 2. He failed to comply with the Warwickshire County Council and/or River House School financial policies and/or procedures, including; 5 a) Between 2010 to 2015 by entering into a procurement contract for the provision of IT services with [REDACTED] on behalf of River House School to the value of approximately £180,000, which was; i. Not approved by the Governing Body who were required to approve all payments in excess of £5,000. ii. In excess of the EU Procurement Threshold. iii. Not procured in compliance with the EU procurement Regulations. iv. To the benefit of Individual A, [REDACTED]. b) Between 2010 to 2013 by procuring maintenance and DIY work from [REDACTED] to the value of approximately £14,421.78 which was; i. Without the requisite approval of the Governing Body who were required to approve all payments in excess of £5,000. ii. Procured and approved by him without provision of sufficient evidence in accordance with Warwickshire County Council Contract Standing Order Rules. iii. To the benefit of Individual B, [REDACTED]. 3. He failed to follow safer recruitment practices and/or failed to appraise the school’s governance in the employment of one or more members of staff including by; a) Failing to conduct a Disclosure and Barring Service check prior to commencement of their employment at the school. b) Failing to conduct an updated Disclosure and Barring Service check in 2010 in relation to Individual D. 4. He employed one or more members of staff without sufficient justification and/or without having advertised the vacancy and/or without prior approval from the Governing Body including but not limited to Individual C. 5. His conduct, as may be found proven, at allegations 3 and 4 above placed one or more pupils at risk of harm. 6. His conduct, as may be found proven, at allegations 1 to 4 above was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. In the absence of Mr Turner the allegations were treated as not admitted. 6 Preliminary applications Application to proceed in Mr Turner’s absence The panel carefully considered all relevant documentation, and the submissions made. It accepted the legal advice provided. First, the panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings has been served in accordance with the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018 (the “Procedures”). The panel also concluded that the TRA had made reasonable efforts to bring the hearing to the attention of Mr Turner. The panel went on to consider whether the hearing should proceed in Mr Turner’s absence. The panel was provided with correspondence from Mr Turner, within which he had clearly stated the following: “I am content that the panel proceeds in my absence That I voluntarily waive my right to attend the final hearing That I am content for the panel to make a decision in my absence.” The panel was satisfied that Mr Turner had voluntarily waived his right to attend the hearing. He had given no reason for his non-attendance and no request for an adjournment had been made. There was no indication that Mr Turner would attend on a future date. He had expressly stated that he would not attend any hearing. The panel also took into account that there is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time; this was a case that had been ongoing for quite some time already and there was no reason to delay these proceedings. The panel also noted that there are witnesses scheduled to give evidence before this panel. Further, this matter has been joined to be heard together with another case and any further delay may result in prejudice to the other teacher, Individual D. For the reasons set out above, the panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Turner. The panel will take great care and caution and have close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings bearing in mind that Mr Turner is not present nor represented. 7 Application for additional documents The panel heard applications for additional documents to be admitted. The TRA applied for a further version of the hearing bundle to be admitted, along with a statement of Mr Turner dated 10 November 2023 and a letter from Mr Turner’s [REDACTED] dated 7 November 2023. Counsel on behalf of Individual D made an application to admit a bundle of evidence, comprising of Individual D’s witness statement dated 2 December 2024, exhibits and some testimonials. The panel carefully considered the documents, and the submissions made. It accepted the legal advice provided. The panel was satisfied that all of the documents were relevant. The panel was disappointed that there had been disclosure of evidence so late, particularly in regards to Individual D’s witness statement. There was some duplication of documents, and this was also the third version of the hearing bundle that had been provided to the panel. However, the panel concluded that all of the documents should be admitted in the interests of fairness and justice. The documents were admitted. Application for privacy The panel heard an application for privacy made on behalf of Individual D. It was submitted that any references to Individual D’s [REDACTED] should be heard in private. As part of the panel’s decision on that application, the panel also determined that any references to [REDACTED] of Mr Turner would also be heard in private. Application to admit hearsay At the end of the TRA’s case, the TRA made an application to admit the witness statement of Witness A as hearsay evidence. The TRA submitted that the statement of Witness A was relevant to the case and therefore the issue was about fairness. In brief, the TRA submitted: • this is not the sole or decisive evidence; • there is considerable other evidence in support of the documents; • there has not been much challenge to the evidence; • there is no reason why Witness A would fabricate her evidence; 8 • these are serious charges, but the teacher is retired so it cannot be said that it will affect his career; • the TRA cannot give a good reason for Witness A’s non attendance because none has been given by Witness A; • the TRA have made numerous efforts to contact Witness A; • the teacher had been given prior notice that Witness A may not attend the hearing. The application was opposed by counsel instructed on behalf of Individual D. In summary, it was submitted: • None of the statements have been agreed, and all witnesses were required to attend for cross examination; • An opportunity to cross examine Witness A has been lost; • Witness A’s evidence is not the sole evidence, but could be decisive. Witness A was the [REDACTED] and only they could answer questions in re