Mr Odran Doran

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Odran Doran

Teacher reference number: 8040943

Teacher's date of birth: 8 March 2024

Location teacher worked: Ipswich, East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 20 November 2023, 26 February to 1 March and 4 to 8 March 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 Odran Doran, formerly employed in Ipswich, 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 Odran Doran: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Application to adduce further evidence 7 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Odran Doran Teacher ref number: 8040943 Teacher date of birth: 7 December 1957 TRA reference: 18717 Date of determination: 8 March 2024 Former employer: The Bridge School, Ipswich Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 20 November 2023 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Odran Doran. The panel members were Ms Rachel Kruger (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Aruna Sharma (teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Francesca Poole of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Doran was present and was represented by Ms Melanie Williamson of St Phillips Chambers. Pursuant to a case management decision dated 27 October 2021, the case of Mr Odran Doran was joined with the case of Teacher A. Teacher A was present and was represented by Ms Megan Fletcher-Smith of Cornwall Street Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of hearing dated 8 September 2023. It was alleged that Mr Doran was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as Headteacher and/or Associate Headteacher of The Bridge School (‘the School’) between 1 September 1988 and 31 August 2018: 1. Mr Doran engaged in unprofessional and/or aggressive behaviour on one or more occasions towards one or more pupils, in that he: a. Permitted and/or allowed the movement of one or more pupils to be restricted by secure mechanisms and/or locks; b. Instructed and/or permitted that one or more pupils be restrained and/or detained in circumstances when it was not appropriate and/or reasonable. Mr Doran denied the allegations, save for the sub paragraph of part 1a. Mr Doran denied that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Document applications The panel considered an application from the Presenting officer to admit three classes of document: 1. Responses provided by Teacher A to the notice of hearing dated 18 March 2020; 2. Investigation interview notes of Witness A and Witness B (and accompanying audit report); and 3. The witness statement of Individual C (which was already within the bundle, but an application was made to include the statement as hearsay evidence). Mr Doran’s representative applied to admit two documents: 4. A witness statement of the Witness I 5. A disputed bundle of unredacted documents Teacher A’s representative also made two applications: 6. A joint application with Mr Doran’s representative to admit those parts of the disputed bundle which relate to Teacher A; and 5 7. An application to remove hearsay evidence within the bundle as specified by page number in the application The panel noted that documents 1, 2 and 4 were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 procedures (“the Procedures”). Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the evidence should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the 2018 procedures. The panel noted that there were no objections to the inclusion of documents 1, 2 and 4. The panel considered that the additional evidence was relevant. Accordingly, the panel decided to admit the evidence. In relation to the applications by the Presenting Officer to include hearsay evidence within the bundle (i.e. document 3) and the application by Teacher A’s representative to remove hearsay in the bundle (document 7), the central question for the panel was whether it was fair in the circumstances to allow evidence to be put forward by the Presenting Officer without the opportunity for the witness to be cross-examined by the teacher. In respect of document 3, the panel took account of 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 the teacher. The panel noted that the evidence was of a key witness to a central allegation in this case, however the panel noted that there was no objection in principle to this application by either teacher given the content of the witness statement of Individual C. In these circumstances, and given that efforts have been made to secure the attendance of the witness, the panel decided that there were sufficient safeguards to protect the teachers against any unfairness caused by being unable to cross-examine this witness. The panel noted they would be provided with a hearsay warning in due course, and that the panel would determine what weight, if any it should attach to the evidence when it came to their deliberations. In relation to the applications by the Teachers’ Representatives to include hearsay evidence within the bundle (documents 4, 5 and 6), the panel noted that there is a distinction to be drawn between the situation when a presenting officer seeks to rely upon hearsay evidence, and the current situation when it is the defence seeking to introduce hearsay evidence, without the witness being in attendance. The former invokes considerations relating to the teacher’s right to a fair hearing, whereas the latter does not, although there remains a question of the fairness between the parties. The panel had regard to whether it would be a sufficient safeguard for a hearsay warning to be given before the panel’s determination on the facts. The panel was satisfied that any imbalance caused to the presenting officer in being unable to cross-examine the witness could be 6 addressed by the panel’s decision in due course as to what weight it should attach to the evidence, if such evidence should be admitted. With regard to the overall question of fairness the panel noted it would be fair to admit the evidence for the following reasons, for the witness statements of Individual C and Witness I, the responses provided by Teacher A and the interview notes of Witness A and Witness B, the Panel noted that the evidence is not the sole or decisive evidence in relation to the allegations. The panel was confident in their ability to determine in due course the weight that they gave to such evidence. By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit each of the documents. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle or remained in the bundle as applicable. Application for virtual witness attendance An application was made by the Presenting Officer for the virtual attendance of one witness, Witness D at Suffolk County Council. An application was made by both Teacher’s representatives for the virtual attendance of witnesses. The panel noted that pursuant to 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. The panel therefore considered it had a discretion as to whether to allow Witness H, Witness E, Witness F, Witness G, Witness I, Witness J and Witness D to give evidence by video-link given the distance the witness would have to travel, the costs entailed and the witnesses’ work commitments (and with specificity to Witness D, [REDACTED]). In exercising that discretion, the panel balanced its obligation to ensure that the teachers or presenting officer 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 the teachers or presenting officer. 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 the witnesses’ work commitments, [REDACTED] and costs of travel would be a barrier to their attendance in person. Allowing the evidence to be given by video link ensures fairness in that all parties were fully able to present their case. The public interest is in favour of the allegations being investigated by the panel receiving the evidence of these witnesses. 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 assessing the weight it attributes to the evidence admitted by video link. The panel therefore decided they were content for the witnesses to provide evidence by video-link. Application to amend an allegation 7 The panel considered an application by the presenting officer to amend the notice of hearing by amending allegation 1 against Mr Doran from ‘You engaged in unprofessional and/or aggressive behaviour on o