Mr Nigel Brunt

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 Nigel Brunt

Teacher reference number: 9453140

Teacher's date of birth: 28 May 1971

Location teacher worked: Maldon, East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 - 24 July 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 Nigel Brunt formerly employed in Maldon, East 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 Nigel Brunt: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 32 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 35 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Nigel John Brunt Teacher ref number: 9453140 Teacher date of birth: 28 May 1971 TRA reference: 19251 Date of determination: 24 July 2024 Former employer: Plume, Maldon’s Community Academy, Essex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 22 - 24 July 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Nigel Brunt. The panel members were Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Diana Barry (teacher panellist) and Mrs Kate Charles (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Beth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mrs Heather Anderson of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Brunt was present for part of the hearing and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of The Reflective Practice. The hearing took place in public, save for parts which were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 28 June 2024. It was alleged that Mr Brunt was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as Vice Principal at the Plume, Maldon’s Community Academy (‘the Academy’): 1. Mr Brunt engaged and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A in that he sent one or more messages to Pupil A between approximately January 2020 – March 2020 which: a. were thousands in number and/or were significant in number. b. one or more messages were sent during Pupil A’s school day. c. were inappropriate in tone and/or language. d. referred to Pupil A by one or more nicknames and/or terms of endearment and/or complimented Pupil A including calling Pupil A: (i) Beautiful (ii) Amazing (iii) Special young lady (iv) Granddaughter e. commented on Pupil A’s physical appearance. f. referred to missing Pupil A and/or enjoying her company. g. referred to hugging and/or kissing Pupil A and/or signing off one or more messages with an ‘x’ or a kiss emoji. h. made suggestions of a sexual nature/innuendo and/or inappropriate nature towards Pupil A. i. telling Pupil A he loved her. j. discussed personal matters with Pupil A including: (i) matters relating to the Academy and/or Academy staff. (ii) matters relating to his own personal life and/or Pupil A’s personal life and family. (iii) matters relating to his own health and/or Pupil A’s health. k. requested Pupil A to delete and/or keep a secret one or more messages and/or communications. l. displayed controlling and/or persuasive behaviour towards Pupil A. 5 2. Mr Brunt failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, including by: a. On one or more occasion meeting and/or requesting to meet Pupil A outside of the Academy and/or taking Pupil A to his smallholding. b. Giving Pupil A gifts on one or more occasions. c. Obtaining Pupil A’s mobile number and communicating with Pupil A via WhatsApp and/or text and/or telephone. d. Made physical contact with Pupil A such as hugging. e. Discussing matters of a personal nature as alleged at allegations 1(j) above. 3. Mr Brunt’s conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1 and/or allegation 2 was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 4. Mr Brunt’s conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1(j) and/or 2(e) lacks integrity. 5. Mr Brunt’s conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1(k) was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. 6. Mr Brunt’s conduct as may be found proven at allegations 1 and/or 2 was a breach of position of trust. Mr Brunt admitted the facts of allegations 1(a) - (l), 2(e), 4 and 6. Mr Brunt admitted the facts of allegations 2(a) - (c), save that he made no admission whether this conduct amounted to a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. Mr Brunt admitted part of the facts of allegation 5, that the conduct lacked integrity. Mr Brunt denied part of the facts of allegation 5, that the conduct was dishonest. Mr B runt denied the facts of allegation 2(d) and 3. Mr Brunt made no admission whether his admitted conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications The panel considered four applications as follows: Application to admit hearsay evidence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to admit the witness 6 Statement of Individual A. [REDACTED] and exhibited materials. These documents were provided to the panel as evidence ahead of the hearing, to be relied on by the presenting officer. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer as to why these documents should be admitted. No objection was made by Mr Brunt’s representative to the application. Under paragraph 5.33 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (“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. The panel also considered the case of Thorneycroft v NMC [2014]. The panel was satisfied that the documents may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case because it demonstrated why the allegations were initially investigated by the Academy. The central question for the panel was whether it is fair in the circumstances to allow evidence to be put forward by the presenting officer without the panel having the opportunity to test the evidence. The panel took into account the efforts made to secure the attendance of the witness and concluded this had not been possible as the witness was not willing to attend. The panel had regard to the seriousness of the allegations in this case, and that it is open to the panel to recommend prohibition in this case if the allegations are found proven. The panel also considered the importance of the evidence and whether it constituted a critical part of the evidence against Mr Brunt. The panel found these documents were not key evidence as other evidence has been presented to the panel which more properly constituted key evidence, central to the issues in the case. There are a large amount of messages relied on which Mr Brunt has had the opportunity to comment on. The panel concluded that inclusion of the evidence would not materially affect its decision making, but would provide additional contextual knowledge and understanding of the allegations and factual background. In these circumstances, given that efforts have been made to secure the attendance of Individual A as a witness, and that Mr Brunt’s representative did not object to the admission of the evidence, the panel decided that there were sufficient safeguards to protect Mr Brunt against any unfairness caused by being unable to cross-examine Individual A. The panel noted it will determine what weight, if any, it should attach to the evidence. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the witness statement of Individual A, and exhibited materials. 7 Application to admit video evidence The panel considered an application from Mr Brunt’s representative to admit evidence of Witness A to be adduced by video link. The panel heard submissions from Mr Brunt’s representative as to why the evidence should be admitted. No objection was made by the presenting officer to the application. The panel noted that pursuant to paragraph 5.33 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. The panel therefore considered it had a discretion as to whether to allow Witness A to give evidence by video link given the distance the witness would have to travel to Coventry, the costs entailed and, the witness’ work commitments. In exercising that discretion, the panel balanced its obligation to ensure that Mr Brunt is not put at an unfair disadvantage, as against the panel’s duty in the public interest to investigate the allegations in so far as possible consistent with fairness to Mr Brunt. The panel also took into account that there may be subtleties of tone or body language that might be lost via the medium of video link. The panel was satisfied on the evidence that there had been sufficient explanation as to how Witness A’s work commitments and travel time would impact her attending in person as she resided and worked in North England. The panel also noted the financial commitment required from Mr Brunt’s supporting union to facilitate Witness A’s attendance in person given she was an instructed professional, giving evidence in respect of a [REDACTED] she had prepared. The panel considered that allowing Witness A’s evidence to be given by video link would ensure Mr Brunt is fully able to present his case, and fairness requires that the presenting officer should be given the opportunity to ask questions of this witness. The public interest is in favour of the allegations being investigated by the panel receiving the evidence of this witness. The panel realised there may be subtleties of tone or body language lost via the medium of video link but considered that such matters could, in any event, be taken into account when asses