Mr Paul Richardson

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 Richardson

Teacher reference number: 1068799

Teacher's date of birth: 14 August 1992

Location teacher worked: Newton Aycliffe, north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 29 to 30 June 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 Richardson, formerly employed in Newton Aycliffe, 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 Richardson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Richardson Teacher ref number: 10/68799 Teacher date of birth: 14 August 1992 TRA reference: 17627 Date of determination: 30 June 2022 Former employer: Woodham Academy, County Durham (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 29 June 2022, virtually, to consider the case of Mr Paul Richardson. The panel members were Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Juliet Berry (lay panellist) and Ms Sharon Bhogal (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Caoimhe Daly of Counsel. Mr Richardson 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 10 March 2022. It was alleged that Mr Paul Richardson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On an unknown date between July 2017 and September 2017, he: a. allowed Pupil A to sit on his shoulders; b. commented on the opacity of the leggings of Pupil A; 2. In or around December 2017, he: a. said to Pupil B “you’re so thick, it’s a good job you’re pretty”, or words to that effect; b. carried around a photo of Pupil B in his phone case; 3. B etween late May and 12 August 2018, he: a. held the hand of Pupil C; b. kissed Pupil C; c. cuddled Pupil C; d. sent messages to Pupil C stating that: i. he loved her, or words to that effect; ii. he wanted to marry her, or words to that effect; iii. gave a key to Pupil C to his residence; 4. His conduct as set out in allegation 3 above was sexually motivated; 5. By his conduct in the foregoing paragraphs, he failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’ professional position. Mr Richardson accepted the facts of each of the allegations set out above and that the facts of the allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the teaching profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. 5 The panel was satisfied that TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 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 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 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 [2003] 1 AC1 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 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. i) The Panel noted that the teacher was aware of the proceedings given the recent email correspondence between Mr Richardson and the TRA’s legal representatives. On the date of the hearing (29 June 2022), Mr Richardson confirmed that he would not be able to attend the hearing as he was taking his relative to hospital. The panel considered that Mr Richardson had voluntarily absented himself from the hearing. The panel therefore considered that Mr Richardson has waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. ii) The panel did not consider that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily, due to the previous communications between the teacher and the TRA and/or TRA’s legal representatives. A previous hearing was scheduled to take place in March 2021, whereby Mr Richardson confirmed in an email dated 13 February 2021 that he would not be attending the hearing. That previous hearing did not proceed, which is why the current hearing was listed. The panel also noted that the teacher did not make any application to adjourn this hearing. 6 iii) There was no wish expressed by Mr Richardson to adjourn the hearing to obtain legal representation. iv) The panel considered the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel had the benefit of written representations made by the teacher. The panel would also be 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. v) The panel considered the risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied, based on the evidence provided (as outlined in (i) above), that Mr Richardson had voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing. vi) The panel has recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. vii) 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. The pupils, to whom the allegations relate, would have an interest in having the allegations determined within a reasonable time. The panel noted that considerable time had already elapsed since the alleged events. Taking the above points into consideration, 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 and by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Application to exclude the public from the hearing The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This followed a written request by the teacher that the hearing should be in private due to his [REDACTED] and personal circumstances. 7 The panel determined not to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures for the public to be excluded from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administrat ion of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. The panel noted that any departure from the general rule has to be no greater than the extent reasonably necessary and that interference for a limited period of the hearing is preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel did not consider that the teacher’s request for the hearing to be heard in private, was a reasonable one given the fact that no medical evidence had been advanced to the panel for considerat ion and his personal circumstances, such as his current employment outside of the teaching profession, were not of relevance to this hearing and so would not be referred to during the hearing. The panel did not consider that there were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s [REDACTED] and personal circumstances, given the fact that no m edical evidence was available to support his position. The panel had seen email correspondence from the TRA’s legal representative to Mr Richardson dated 15 June 2022 explaining the process for requesting private hearings or for his name to be anonymised. The TRA’s legal representative explained in this email that “You will need to provide us with your reasons for your request and provide supporting evidence, if applicable, in order for this to be considered.” The panel noted that Mr Richardson chose not to submit any medical evidence after this correspondence. Therefore, the panel determined that the public should not be excluded from the hearing. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents whic