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: 0261335

Teacher's date of birth: 10 October 1971

Location teacher worked: Nottinghamshire, East Midlands of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 November 2019 to 20 November 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 Nick Lucas formerly employed in Nottinghamshire, East Midlands of England. The proceedings were held at the Double Tree by Hilton Hotel, Paradise Way, Walsgrave Triangle, Coventry at 9.30am on 18 November 2019 to 20 November 2019.

Mr Nick Lucas: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary Applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 E. Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 20 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Nick Lucas Teacher ref number: 0261335 Teacher date of birth: 10 October 1971 TRA reference: 17410 Date of determination: 20 November 2019 Former employer: Denewood and Unity Academies, part of the Radleigh Learning Trust (“the School”), Nottingham A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 18 November 2019 to 20 November 2019 at Double Tree by Hilton Hotel, Paradise Way, Walsgrave Triangle, Coventry, Warwickshire, CV2 2ST, to consider the case of Mr Nick Lucas. The panel members were Mr Mike Carter (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Alison Walsh (teacher panellist) and Ms Nicole Jackson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Phillip Dayle of No.5 Chambers, instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP. Mr Lucas was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save for a part of the hearing which was held in private and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 13 May 2019. It was alleged that Mr Lucas was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On various dates, he failed to maintain high standards of behaviour in that he a) Intimidated and/or bullied Witness A and other members of staff, b) Verbally abused Witness A and other members of staff, c) Made references regarding Witness A’s personal life to her and in the presence of other members of staff, d) Used derogatory language to describe Witness A’s appearance and used words to the effect of “venereal”, e) Put undue pressure on Witness C to return to work early following an operation, f) Made homophobic references to Individual A, describing him as “gay” or words to this effect, g) Swore in front of pupils, 2. On various dates, you failed to have regard to the need to safeguard pupils’ well- being in that you a) Pulled Pupil A by his legs and held him upside down in a room on your own, contrary to the Academy’s policy and training, causing his head to hit the floor, on or about 25 April 2017, b) Picked Pupil A up and pulled him around like a rag doll, c) Held Pupil B against the wall by the throat, d) Called Pupil C a “little shit” or words to this effect. 3. On various dates, you failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies, and practices of the Academy in that you a) Failed to complete incident report forms for incidents involving pupils in which you were involved, b) Failed to inform Pupil A’s parents of the incident in April 2017, c) Failed to and/or refused to attend Restrictive Physical Intervention training agreed for Key Stage 2 staff following the incident with Pupil A. 5 Mr Lucas acknowledged that he did swear in front of a pupil in respect of allegation 1g and admitted that he removed Pupil A from under a table by pulling his ankles in respect of allegation 2a. Whilst in response to the Notice of Proceedings, Mr Lucas admitted that some of the facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Lucas did not specify which of the facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. C. Preliminary Applications The panel considered the following preliminary applications. Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the Presenting Officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Lucas. 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”). The panel was also 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 determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. 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 a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel was satisfied that Mr Lucas was aware of the proceedings as the teacher had responded to the Notice of Proceedings. The panel had sight of an email at page 14 of the bundle from Mr Lucas’ representative which confirmed that Mr Lucas was agreeable to the hearing proceeding on 18th November 2019 and to waive the 8 week notice. The panel also had sight of email correspondence between Mr Lucas’ representative and DAC Beachcroft LLP at pages 326 to 329 of the bundle which confirmed that Mr Lucas would not be in attendance at the hearing, that Mr Lucas waived his right to attend the hearing, and was content with the hearing proceeding in his absence. Mr Lucas considered attendance at the hearing 6 would exacerbate his mental health problems. No acceptance was made by Mr Lucas or his representative in relation to the offer of an online video to facilitate Mr Lucas being present for the hearing. The panel considered that Mr Lucas had clearly communicated his wish for the proceedings to proceed in his absence and had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. The panel had regard to the requirement that it was only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in Mr Lucas’ attendance at the hearing. The panel noted that the hearing had been adjourned from a previous date when Mr Lucas had not attended and had been adjourned in order for him to attend a future hearing. The panel considered the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel had the benefit of written representations made by the teacher and was able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel had the teacher’s evidence addressing mitigation and was able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel had noted that all witnesses relied upon were to be called to give evidence and the panel could test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as were favourable to the teacher, as reasonably available on the evidence. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence. Should such gaps had arisen during the course of the hearing, the panel could take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel has had regard to the seriousness of this case. The panel was aware of the potential consequences for the teacher of waiving his right to appear and has accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. The panel recognised that the measures referred to above would address that unfairness insofar as is possible. The panel took account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses. Moreover on balance, these were serious allegations so therefore it was in the public interest for this hearing to proceed. Excluding the public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Regulations and paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. 7 The panel has taken into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. The panel had noted that there were concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health being placed in the public domain. The panel had therefore, considered whether there were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s health. It decided that there were not. The panel therefore considered that such parts of the hearing should be held in private. It decided that the public interest required that the hearing should be public, but decided it would hear certain parts relating to confidential medical information in private. Additional documents Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. T