Mr Paul Corrie

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 Paul Corrie

Teacher reference number: 8667718

Teacher's date of birth: 29 May 1962

Location teacher worked: Didcot, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 April 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 Paul Corrie, formerly employed in Didcot, South 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 Paul Corrie Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Corrie Teacher ref number: 8667718 Teacher date of birth: 29 May 1962 TRA reference: 20262 Date of determination: 25 April 2024 Former employer: UTC Oxfordshire, Didcot Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 April 2024 virtually to consider the case of Mr Paul Corrie. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist and Chair), Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist) and Ms Claire Shortt (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Corrie that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Corrie provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks Solicitors LLP or Mr Corrie. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of meeting dated 15 April 2024. It was alleged that Mr Corrie was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: On 5 September 2022 he had been convicted of: 1. 2 Counts of Making Indecent Photographs or Pseudo-Photographs of Children, contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978; 2. Attempting/Engaging in Sexual Communication with a Child, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003; 3. Causing Child under 13 to watch a Sexual act, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. However, the panel noted that the allegations referred to the conviction date of 5 September 2022, whereas based on the evidence presented to the panel it was noted that this appeared to be the date of sentencing. The actual date of conviction w as 21 June 2022. As such, the panel agreed that it was in the interests of justice to make this minor amendment to the allegations, which is reflected later in this decision. The panel did not consider that any prejudice would be caused to Mr Corrie by making the amendment, nor would he have presented his case differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage; he agreed to the correct dates in the statement of facts. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and Notice of Meeting – pages 6 to 22 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 23 to 27 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 28 to 117 Section 5: Teacher documents – page n/a 5 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Corrie on 21 February 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Corrie for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Corrie had been employed at UTC Oxfordshire (“school”) since September 2015 as a teacher and most recently as Head of Department/Maths Lead. On 1 September 2021 the school received a call from the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) to inform them that Mr Corrie had been arrested. On 6 September 2021 Mr Corrie’s employment with the school was terminated. On 21 June 2022 Mr Corrie was convicted. On 22 June 2022 a referral was made to the TRA and on 5 September 2022 Mr Corrie was sentenced at Oxford Crown Court. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against Mr Corrie proved, for these reasons: On 21 June 2022 Mr Corrie was convicted of: 1. Making indecent photograph or pseudo -photograph of children on 16 March 2019 contrary to s.1(a) of Protection of children Act 1978; 2. Making indecent photograph o r pseudo-photograph of children on 16 April 2020 contrary to s.1(a) of Protection of children Act 1978; 3. Attempt/engage in sexual communication with a child on 17 August 2021 contrary to s.15A(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; 4. Cause child under 13 to watch sexual act on 17 August 2021 contrary to s.12(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 6 The panel took account of the statement of agreed facts, certificate of conviction, and Judge’s sentencing remarks, all of which were presented in the bundle before the panel. In August 2021, Mr Corrie began communicating with someone who he believed to be a 12 year-old girl on an online forum. Unbeknown to Mr Corrie, the recipient of his messages was an undercover Police officer. For ease of reference, the recipient is referred to as Person A in this decision. Their communications moved to SnapChat, which is a multimedia messaging application which can be downloaded from the apple store and google play. Over the course of approximately seven days, Mr Corrie sent sexually explicit messages to Person A, including photographs of his groin area (including phot ographs of his erect penis, both underneath clothes and naked) and a video of himself masturbating. Mr Corrie also commented to Person A that their profile was sexy and that he was aroused by their conversation. When Mr Corrie was interviewed by the Police , he admitted that he found it exciting talking to children online, that he was aware his behaviours were illegal but that he could not help it. He also admitted to seeing indecent images of children online and that he has used links sent to him to view child abuse material. During their investigation of Mr Corrie’s devices , the Police also found 2 inaccessible category A videos, 4 inaccessible category A images, and 5 inaccessible category C images. Mr Corrie received a sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment, and a sexual harm prevention order and a deprivation order were made against him . In respect of the conviction for causing a child under 13 to watch a sexual act, the panel noted the Judge’s sentencing remarks in that Mr Corrie’s sentence was downgraded because Person A was not actually a child. Nonetheless, the panel consider this offence to be serious. For the above reasons, in particular the certificate of conviction, the panel find the allegations proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others , the responsibilities and duties of teachers in relation to the safeguarding and welfare of pupils and considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Corrie, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Corrie was in breach of the following standards: - Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by 7 o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs - Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. - Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to working with children. Mr Corrie’s actions were sexually motivated and the offences he committed were related to sexual activity, or at least desired sexual activity, with a child. He admitted to his motivations during the Police investigation. While the o ffences did not involve children of the school, the panel believe that working with children is a relevant factor when considering the nature of the offences. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of members of the public and/or possibly pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Corrie’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Corrie was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Corrie’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed , and which the Advice states is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. This was a case concerning an offence involving activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one -off incidents. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such offences is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. 8 The panel noted that the advice is not intended to be exhaustive and there may be other offences that panels consider to be “a relevant offence”. In this case, sexual activity and sexual communication with a child are also relevant in the panel’s view. Although Person A was not a child, it had been Mr Corrie’s intention to send messages, images and videos of a sexual and graphic nature to a child under the age of 13. The panel was not provided with any evidence of Mr Corrie’s teaching proficiency and the panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Corrie’s fitness to be a teacher . The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Corrie and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils; the protection of other members of the public ; the maintenance of public confidence in the profession ; declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct; the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Corrie , which involved serious offences relating to sexually motivated conduct towards a child and involving making and/or possession indecent images of children , there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the above. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of Mr Corrie’s inappropriate sexual conduct towards a child. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Corrie were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. 9 The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Corrie was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel was not presented with any evidence to demonstrate Mr Corrie’s ability as an educator and the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Corrie in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a panel will likely consider a teacher’s behaviour to be incompatible with being a teacher if there is evidence of one or more of the factors that begin on page 15. In the list of such factors, those that were relevant in this case were: - serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; - the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are “relevant matters” for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosure; - misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; - sexual misconduct, for example, involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; - any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting such activity, including one-off incidents; - failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE). Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, taking account of the public interest and the seriousness of the behaviour and the likely harm to the public interest were the teacher be allowed to continue to teach, the panel went on to consider whether there were mitigating circumstances. The panel found that there was no evidence to show that Mr Corrie’s actions were not deliberate. 10 There was also no evidence to suggest that Mr Corrie was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation and, in fact, the panel found Mr Corrie’s actions to be calculated and motivated. The panel was not presented with any evidence as to Mr Corrie’s previous disciplinary record or good character and so is unable to make any finding in respect of the same. The panel notes the sentencing remarks made by the Judge on 5 September 2022, namely that Mr Corrie had taken steps to address his behaviour. He had also engaged with support offered by the [REDACTED], a charity recognised for its work with rehabilitating sexual offenders. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Corrie of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Corrie. The seriousness and nature of the offences was a particular concern for the panel, as well as the fact that Mr Corrie had intentionally targeted someone who he believed to be a 12 - year old girl and persisted in sending communications that were sexually motivated, were both significant factors in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are cases involving certain conduct where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These cases include serious sexual misconduct, any sexual misconduct involving a child, and/or any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, including one off incidents . The panel found that Mr Corrie was responsible for seeking out a child to whom he sent sexually graphic and motivated communications online and/or via SnapChat. 11 Based on the evidence provided, the panel was offered an insight into Mr Corrie’s actions. He admitted during the Police investigation that he feels gratification and excitement from talking to children online. While the panel did note that Mr Corrie had c learly taken steps to address his behaviour, the panel was provided with no evidence to demonstrate genuine remorse for his actions or that there would not be a repetition of his actions. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Paul Corrie should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Corrie is in breach of the following standards: - Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs - Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. 12 - Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Corrie involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Corrie fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include relevant convictions for attempting to engage in sexual communications with a child and making photographs or pseudo-photographs of children resulting in a term of imprisonment. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of a relevant conviction, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Corrie, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel records that “There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of Mr Corrie’s inappropriate sexual conduct towards a child .” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “Based on the evidence provided, the panel was offered an insight into Mr Corrie’s actions. He admitted during the Police investigation that he feels gratification and excitement from talking to children online. While the panel did note that Mr Corrie had c learly taken steps to address his behaviour, the panel was provided with no evidence to demonstrate genuine remorse for his actions or that there would not be a repetition of his actions.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence of that Mr Corrie has attained full insight into and remorse for his behaviour means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. 13 I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel records that it “…also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Corrie’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Corrie was allowed to continue teaching.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of sexually motivated behaviour involving children in this case and the very negative impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of a relevant conviction, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Corrie himself. The panel notes that it “…was not presented with any evidence to demonstrate Mr Corrie’s ability as an educator and the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Corrie in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher.” The panel also records that it was presented with no evidence as to Mr Corrie’s good character. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Corrie from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the very serious nature of the misconduct found, which in my judgment is incompatible with being a teacher. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Corrie has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. In doing so, the panel has referred to the Advice which indicates that there are cases involving certain conduct where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance 14 and weigh in favour of not offering a review period . These cases include serious sexual misconduct, any sexual misconduct involving a child, and/or any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child , including one off incidents. The panel found that Mr Corrie was responsible for seeking out a child to whom he sent sexually graphic and motivated communications online and/or via SnapChat. I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the very serious nature of the misconduct found which included relevant convictions for attempting to engage in sexual communications with a child and making photographs (or pseudo-photographs) of children resulting in a term of imprisonment as well as the lack of evidence of full insight and remorse which indicates that there is a risk of this behaviour being repeated in the future. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Paul Corrie is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Corrie shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Corrie has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 29 April 2024 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.