Mr Paul Elliott

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 Elliott

Teacher reference number: 9240979

Teacher's date of birth: 20 November 1968

Location teacher worked: north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 03 October 2022 to 05 October 2022

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 Elliott, formerly employed in north 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 Elliott: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Elliott Teacher ref number: 9240979 Teacher date of birth: 20 November 1968 TRA reference: 18972 Date of determination: 5 October 2022 Former employer: Yarm School, Yarm Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 3 October 2022 remotely via Microsoft TEAMS, to consider the case of Mr Paul Elliott. The panel members were Mr Clive Ruddle (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Elizabeth Pollitt (teacher panellist) and Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael O'Donohoe of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Elliott was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 5 August 2022. It was alleged that Mr Elliott was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. When applying for one or more teaching positions at schools in England he: a. Stated that he had achieved up to 12 As at O Levels when this was not the case; b. Stated that he had obtained up to 6 As at A Levels when this was not the case; c. Stated that he was a Visiting Scholar at Cambridge University in 2005/2006 when this was not the case; d. Stated that he had studied Medicine at Oxford University when this was not the case; e. Stated that he attended Oxford University as a Fellow in 1995 when this was not the case; f. Stated that he had played for Oxford University Rugby when this was not the case; g. Stated that he had played in the 1995 Varsity Rugby match when this was not the case; h. Stated that he had played professional rugby for Wigan Warriors when this was not the case; i. Stated that he had been selected to represent” North” against Australia as part of the Australian National Rugby team’s UK tour in 1988 when this was not the case; j. Stated that he had worked as Head of Department at Carmel College when in fact he had been employed as a subject teacher; 5 k. Stated that he was a Lecturer in the Department of Theology and Philosophy and a Tutor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Liverpool Hope University when in fact he had been employed as a Resident Tutor; l. Stated that he had been employed as Director of Rugby at Churcher’s College when in fact he had been employed as a rugby coach; m. Stated that he had been employed as an Assistant Director of Sport at Churcher’s College when in fact he had been employed as a PE teacher; n. Stated that he was employed as a Master in Charge of Oxbridge at Churcher’s College when this was not the case; o. Stated that he was employed at Belvedere School in 2002 when this was not the case; p. Stated that his reference was from a Deputy Headmaster when in fact they were a Director of Studies. 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at 1 above was dishonest and/or lacked integrity in that he knowingly provided this information as part of his application. Mr Elliott does not admit the allegations. Preliminary applications The panel first considered an application by the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Elliott. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases including GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Elliott's absence. Mr Elliott had responded to the Notice, confirming that he will not be attending. The panel determined that it should proceed in the absence of Mr Elliott, for the following reasons: • Mr Elliott had not sought an adjournment. 6 • The panel had not been provided with any medical evidence which indicated that Mr Elliott was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-health. • The panel was satisfied that given Mr Elliott's response to the Notice, his absence was voluntary, and he had waived his right to attend. • The risk of reaching the wrong conclusion and the disadvantage to Mr Elliott in not being present were mitigated by the fact that he has provided submissions in respect of the allegations. • There was no indication that Mr Elliott might attend at a future date and an adjournment would be unlikely to result in his attendance at a later date. • There is a strong public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable timeframe. • The panel was conscious that a witness had made arrangements and was ready to attend the hearing to provide their oral evidence. The panel considered an application from the TRA to discontinue allegation 1j, namely – j. Stated that he had worked as Head of Department at Carmel College when in fact he had been employed as a subject teacher; The presenting officer told the panel that there was insufficient evidence regarding this allegation and in effect, there was no case to answer and the allegation should be discontinued. The panel accepted the legal advice. The panel was satisfied that it could discontinue allegation 1j and there was no unfairness or prejudice caused. The panel also heard an application to admit additional documents. Firstly, there was an application made by the TRA to admit two additional documents. The presenting officer told the panel that the documents were missing pages from two separate exhibits already contained in the bundle. The presenting officer informed the panel that the documents were not new and had already been provided to Mr Elliott during the course of the TRA's investigation and had been sent to him again on 2 October 2022. Secondly, Mr Elliott had made a request for the panel to be provided with four additional documents. The presenting officer confirmed there was no objection to the documents that Mr Elliott had requested being included. The panel considered these two applications together, although it read and considered the documents individually. The panel heard and accepted legal advice. The panel determined that all of the documents were relevant to the issues it had to determine, and it was in the interests of a fair hearing for them to be admitted. For clarity, the panel accepted both the TRA's application and Mr Elliott's application for additional documents to be considered. 7 After the panel had concluded its deliberations, but before its decision was handed down, it was made aware that Mr Elliott had sent two additional documents to the presenting officer at or around 18:13 on 4 October 2022. The panel treated that email as an application made by Mr Elliott for the two documents to be admitted. The panel heard and accepted legal advice on the application. The first document was a Certificate in Religious Education from July 1993. The panel considered that this document was not relevant to the allegations and therefore the panel determined that it should not be admitted. The second document was a Farmington Fellowship certificate from 1995. The panel considered that the second document was relevant to the allegations. The panel noted that these were unusual circumstances, in that this application had been made after it had deliberated on stages 1 and 2 but had not yet handed down its decision. Although the document was provided at a very late stage in the proceedings, the panel considered that the document should be admitted in the interests of fairness and justice. Mr Elliott was not present nor represented during these proceedings and the panel believed that Mr Elliott sent the document so that it could be considered by the panel. For the sake of completeness, the panel went on to consider whether this additional document altered its findings at stages 1 and 2. It decided that the additional document did not alter its findings. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 9 to 10 Section 2: Notice of Hearing – pages 12 to 25 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 27 to 83 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 85 to 167 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 170 to 365 8 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: TRA additional documents: • CV and Cover Letter from Belvedere – pages 366 to 369 • Winchester College Application – pages 370 to 374 Teacher additional documents: • Private investigation report (from Mr Elliott) – pages 375 to 409 • Private investigation report (from the School) – pages 410 to 414 • Mr Elliott's notes on private detective report – pages 415 to 424 • Email chain between Mr Elliott and the presenting officer – pages 425 to 448 • Farmington Institute Certificate – page 449 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing