Mr Oliver Wood

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 Oliver Wood

Teacher reference number: 1972137

Teacher's date of birth: 07 July 1994

Location teacher worked: Crewe, North West of England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 to 30 January 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Oliver Wood formerly employed in Crewe, North West of England.

Mr Oliver Wood: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Oliver Wood TRA reference: 21598 Date of determination: 30 January 2025 Former employer: The Cornerstone Academy, Crewe Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 27 to 30 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Oliver Wood. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (Former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Lauren Gray (lay panellist) and Mrs Hannah Foster (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Lucy Churchill of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Wood was present and was represented by Ms Gurpreet Rheel of Cornwall Street Barristers. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 13 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Wood was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as a teacher at The Youth Engagement Schools Trust (‘the Trust’): 1. On or around 28 November 2022, he pushed a table into Pupil A; 2. On 1 April 2023, in connection with his conduct towards Pupil A at 1 above, he accepted a Conditional Police Caution for the offence of “assaulted victim by beating him”. At the outset of the hearing, the teacher’s representative confirmed Mr Wood admitted allegations 1 and 2 and adopted a neutral position in respect of whether his admitted conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to admit additional documents The panel considered a preliminary application from the teacher’s representative for the admission of additional documents. The teacher’s documents were: • the teacher’s witness statement dated 24 January 2025; and • a consolidated bundle of character references totalling 9 pages (including some previously disclosed character references which were already in the bundle of documents). Save to the extent set out above, the documents subject to the application had not been served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.37 Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). Therefore, the panel was required to decide whether the documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel heard representations from the teacher’s representative in respect of the application. The presenting officer adopted a neutral position in respect of the application. 5 The panel considered the additional documents were relevant and it was fair to admit them. Accordingly, the documents were added to the bundle. Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private The teacher’s representative made an application for parts of the hearing dealing with the following matters to be dealt with in private: • any personal and/or health issues; and • the audio recording of Mr Wood’s police interview (as it included references to Pupil A’s name, and sensitive information relating to their private life). The presenting officer did not oppose the application. The panel granted the application. The panel considered it was not contrary to the public interest or the interests of justice for part of the hearing, which was the subject of the application, to be heard in private. The panel considered that the areas covered in the application legitimately related to aspects of Mr Wood’s and Pupil A’s private life and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in public. The hearing was still being held in public and these were discrete and limited areas which would not undermine the public's ability to otherwise understand the case. The panel therefore granted the application. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 30 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 31 to 37 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 38 to 389 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 390 to 404. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • the teacher’s witness statement dated 24 January 2025; and • a consolidated bundle of character references totalling 9 pages. 6 The panel members confirmed that they had listened to the police interview audio recording, viewed the CCTV footage of the incident, and read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A, [REDACTED] at Cornerstone Academy (‘the School’) called by the TRA. The panel heard oral evidence from the teacher. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 1 September 2020, Mr Wood was employed by the Trust, based at the School, as a primary class teacher. On 28 November 2022, Mr Wood allegedly pushed a table into a [REDACTED] pupil in class. On 10 March 2023, the Trust referred the matter to the TRA. On 1 April 2023, Mr Wood accepted a conditional police caution for the offence of “assaulted victim by beating”. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 28 November 2022, you pushed a table into Pupil A; The panel noted that Mr Wood admitted the allegation but still considered the evidence placed before it. The panel viewed the CCTV video that captured the incident visually and noted that Pupil A pushed the table into Mr Wood’s right leg, and Mr Wood forcefully used his right thigh to push the table back towards Pupil A, and the table hit Pupil A in the chest causing him 7 to lean forward. The panel considered that the CCTV evidence demonstrated that Mr Wood had used force when moving the table towards Pupil A. The panel listened to the audio recording of the police interview with Mr Wood dated 19 January 2023. Mr Wood stated that Pupil A pushed the table into the top of his right leg and that he remembered pushing the table, but with the intention of straightening it up. He stated that he unintentionally caught Pupil A with the table, and that this was not deliberate. Mr Wood stated that he did not mean to push the table so hard and referred to it as “human error”, stating that he stood back once he had done it as he was shocked at himself. The panel considered Mr Wood’s written and oral evidence. Mr Wood stated of the incident, “my immediate response was to push it back into place. I was not angry or annoyed – I was used to such incidents with Pupil A. It was like a knee jerk reaction; I simply didn’t expect the table to catch him when I moved it…. I am certain that I never intended for the table to catch Pupil A.” The panel noted that Mr Wood was unable to recall his thoughts at the time of pushing the table, and why he had departed from his training, but maintained during his evidence that he did not intentionally push the table into Pupil A. The panel considered the incident report of Individual B, who witnessed the incident on 28 November 2022. The panel attached limited weight to this evidence because it was hearsay, in that Individual B had not given evidence before the panel, and Mr Wood challenged Individual B’s account in several respects during the School’s investigation and the hearing. The panel was not able to corroborate Individual B’s account with any other documentary evidence in the bundle. The panel noted the School had not retained all the evidence collated as part of its own investigation, in particular evidence which Mr Wood stated challenged Individual B’s account, and therefore this evidence was not available to the panel. The panel considered the written and oral evidence of Witness A. The panel noted Witness A stated that he had no concerns about Mr Wood prior to the incident, he valued Mr Wood’s commitment to teaching and stated that the incident “was 100% out of character”. The panel noted Mr Wood consistently maintained during the School and Police investigation and during these proceedings that he had not intentionally set out to hit or harm Pupil A. The panel considered the evidence and concluded on balance of probability that Mr Wood had acted recklessly when pushing the table and, as a fact, it had hit Pupil A, which was apparent from the CCTV footage. 8 The panel therefore found allegation 1 proven. 2. On 1 April 2023, in connection with your conduct towards Pupil A at 1 above, you accepted a conditional police caution for the offence of “assaulted victim by beating him”. The panel noted that Mr Wood admitted the allegation but still considered all the evidence placed before it. The panel considered the conditional caution issued by Cheshire Constabulary dated 1 April 2023 and noted t