Mr Olaf Stepnowski

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 Olaf Stepnowski

Teacher reference number: 0931801

Teacher's date of birth: 10 September 1974

Location teacher worked: Wolverhampton, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 to 12 November 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 Olaf Stepnowski formerly employed in Wolverhampton, 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.

Olaf Stepnowski: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 22 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Olaf Stepnowski Teacher ref number: 0931801 Teacher date of birth: 10 September 1974 TRA reference: 21547 Date of determination: 12 November 2024 Former employer: Lawnswood Campus – Braybrook Centre Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 November 2024 via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Olaf Stepnowski. The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Duncan MacGregor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Alexandra Monaghan of Crucible Law, instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Olaf Stepnowski was not present for the hearing and was not represented at the hearing. The panel considered an application to proceed in Mr Stepnowski’s absence on day 1. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 16 July 2024. It was alleged that Olaf Stepnowski was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On 20 April 2021, Mr Stepnowski used an unnecessary and/or inappropriate physical restraint on Person A 2. Mr Stepnowski’s conduct at paragraph 1 was contrary to: a) previous management instructions regarding physical restraint on young people, and/or b) approved ‘Team Teach’ physical restraint techniques. Mr Stepnowski was not present at the hearing, so was taken to have not admitted either the allegations or that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Preliminary application to proceed in the absence of Mr Stepnowski The panel considered the presenting officer’s application to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel granted this application for the reasons set out below. The panel was satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (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 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient 5 disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones. In assessing the nature and circumstances of Mr Stepnowski’s behaviour in absenting himself from the hearing, the panel considered the documents in the proceeding in absence bundle, in particular: 1) The exchange of emails between Mr Stepnowski and Kingsley Napley LLP (on behalf of the TRA) wherein: a. On 21 May 2024, by email timed 14:19, Mr Stepnowski confirmed that he was Mr Olaf Stepnowski and that Kingsley Napley LLP was contacting him at the correct email address; b. On 23 May 2024, by email timed 16:15, Mr Stepnowski stated that “TRA investigation is out of my interest… I have no trust in any proceedings offered me by institution which are school related. To me the system is morally corrupt… Please do not contact me anymore. I do not wish to be contacted. I am not interested in your proceedings and your decisions… I will file a civil case against anybody who will harass me with this matter again”. 2) The Notice of Hearing dated 16 July 2024 was served on Mr Stepnowski by post. 3) That Mr Stepnowski did not submit a Response to Notice of Hearing form. 4) The exchange of emails between Mr Stepnowski’s representative and Kingsley Napley LLP on 15 October 2024, wherein Mr Stepnowski’s representative confirmed that Mr Stepnowski did not wish to: a. attend the hearing or be represented at the hearing; or b. submit any new documentation further to the documents included at section 5 of the hearing bundle. From these documents, the panel was satisfied that: 1) Mr Stepnowski was made aware of the panel hearing in ample time, in excess of the required 10 weeks’ notice; 6 2) Mr Stepnowski had clearly and unequivocally waived his right to participate in these proceedings; 3) Mr Stepnowski was very unlikely to opt to participate in these proceedings if the panel hearing was adjourned, given Mr Stepnowski’s reasons for declining to participate in the first instance; and 4) Mr Stepnowski had an appointed representative, but instructed that representative not to attend on his behalf. The panel considered that in light of Mr Stepnowski’s clear and unequivocal comments about his disengagement with the hearing process, he would be highly unlikely to attend a panel hearing following an adjournment. Any adjournment would likely be for a number of months in order for a panel to be convened. The panel had not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, that may be taken into consideration in deciding whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. 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 noted that Mr Stepnowski had provided documentary evidence that included: (i) his contemporaneous account of the incident from which the allegations arise and two later accounts of the incident; (ii) written statements given by him in disciplinary proceedings conducted by the school; and (iii) evidence of his character provided by other members of staff at the school, which the panel could consider on the issue of mitigation, if appropriate to do so. From these documents, the panel was satisfied that it was able to ascertain Mr Stepnowski’s lines of defence. As to whether Mr Stepnowski was disadvantaged by the panel proceeding in his absence, the panel considered that. Mr Stepnowski would not have the benefit of testing the evidence put forward by the TRA, but noted that the panel could mitigate that disadvantage to some extent by asking its own questions based on its understanding of Mr Stepnowski’s lines of defence. The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that, if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. 7 The conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at the school. The school would have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. The panel has also noted that there was one witness prepared to give evidence at the hearing and that it would be inconvenient and potentially distressing for this to be re- scheduled. Delaying the case may have impacted upon the memories of that witness. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing today. Preliminary application – admission of hearsay evidence already contained in the bundle The panel granted the presenting officer’s application to admit the hearsay evidence of Witness B for the reasons set out below. Under paragraph 5.33 of the 2020 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 was satisfied that the documents may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case in relation to the previous management advice given to the teacher. The panel considered that whilst Witness B’s evidence was not central to the allegations, it is relevant to the background to the proceedings, in