Mr Paul Scott

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 Scott

Teacher reference number: 18818

Teacher's date of birth: 22 October 1968

Location teacher worked: Derbyshire, east Midlands.

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 to 21 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 Scott, formerly employed in Derbyshire, east Midlands.

Mr Paul Scott: 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 11 Documents 11 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 12 Findings of fact 13 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 41 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 47 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Scott Teacher ref number: 9944758 Teacher date of birth: 22 October 1968 TRA reference: 0018818 Date of determination: 10 to 21 October 2022 Former employer: Arboretum Primary School, Derbyshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually, via Microsoft Teams, on 10 to 21 October 2022, to consider the case of Mr Paul Scott. The panel members were Mr Roger Woods (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist) and Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Scott was 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 26 April 2022. It was alleged that Mr Scott was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that he: 1. Made unprofessional and/or inappropriate comments, in that he; a. Made comments to one or more female members of staff regarding their appearance and/or what they were wearing, by making one or more of the comments set out in the attached schedule; b. Made comments to one or more female members of staff in relation to pregnancy, by making one or more of the comments set out in the attached schedule; c. Made comments to one or more female members of staff of a suggestive and/or sexual nature, by making one or more of the comments set out in the attached schedule; d. Made comments referring to others in a derogatory way, by making one or more of the comments set out in the attached schedule; 2. Made inappropriate physical contact with other staff members, by engaging in one or more of the behaviours described in the attached schedule. 3. His behaviour as may be found proven at allegation 1 and/or 2 with respect to Staff Member 008 and/or Staff Member 009 constituted sexual harassment. 4. Failed to carry out his safeguarding responsibilities as Headteacher and Designated Safeguarding Lead, adequately or at all, on one or more occasions, in that he; a. Failed to acknowledge and/or deal in a timely and/or appropriate manner with concerns reported either directly to him or via the School's safeguarding system, including but not limited to the incident relating to Pupil A and Individual E in March 2019; b. Failed to feedback, adequately or at all, to members of staff in relation to any actions taken to deal with safeguarding concerns, including but not limited to the incident relating to Pupil A and Individual E in March 2019. 5. Failed, without reasonable excuse, to carry out his professional duties as Headteacher on one or more occasions, in that he; 5 a. Informed other members of the Senior Leadership Team that he would not be coming into school when it was snowing on an occasion in or around February 2018, without any regard for how decisions about the management of the school would be made in his absence; b. Failed to plan for and/or attend a staff inset/training day at the beginning of the 2018/19 academic year, despite having previously arranged this to accommodate other plans he had made around the October half-term. Mr Scott denied all of the allegations at the outset of the hearing. He accepted that some comments/instances of physical contact, as particularised in the schedule to the allegations, did occur. However, he denied that his admitted actions were unprofessional, inappropriate and/or derogatory in the specific context in which they occurred. Mr Scott made some further admissions during the course of his oral evidence, accepting that in certain respects his actions were inappropriate and unprofessional in relation to allegations 1 and 2. Mr Scott denied that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications The panel received four preliminary applications on behalf of the TRA, namely: • To anonymise witnesses; • For special measures; • To admit hearsay evidence; and • For part of the hearing to be held in private. In addition, on the morning of day 7 of the hearing, Mr Scott made an application to admit an additional witness statement. In considering these applications, the panel had careful regard to the parties' submissions and relevant documentation. It accepted the legal advice provided. Application for anonymisation 6 The TRA sought a direction for anonymity in relation to all of the witnesses it was calling to give evidence. This application was made pursuant to Rule 4.60 of the 'Teacher Misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession' ("the Procedures"). On behalf of the TRA, it was submitted that anonymity was necessary and appropriate, in the specific circumstances of this case, to ensure that the witnesses were in the best position possible to provide their evidence openly to the panel. It was further submitted that this did not prejudice Mr Scott and nor was it contrary to the public interest. With specific reference to Staff Member 8 and Staff Member 9, reference was also made to the fact that they were the alleged victims of behaviour said to amount to sexual harassment. It was suggested that they should, therefore, be considered as vulnerable and this necessitated anonymisation. Mr Scott did not object to the application. However, in addressing the panel, Mr Scott suggested that, were the application to be allowed, it would mean that he would be treated differently to the witnesses. He would be named whereas the witnesses, who were his accusers, would not be. Mr Scott thereby queried the fairness of making such a distinction. Having carefully considered the information before it and the parties' submissions, the panel agreed to the application for anonymisation in relation to Staff Member 8 and Staff Member 9 only. It followed that it decided the remaining TRA witnesses should not be anonymised. In relation to Staff Member 8 and Staff Member 9, the allegations their evidence addressed included that they were, allegedly, subject to unwanted attention in the form of comments of a sexual nature, in a broad sense, and physical contact. It was further alleged that these actions constituted sexual harassment. In the specific circumstances of this case, the panel concluded that this warranted a departure from the principle of open justice whereby both individuals should be anonymised. They were the alleged victims of this unwanted behaviour and the panel concluded, on balance, that this direction was appropriate and necessary. However, the panel arrived at a different conclusion in relation to the other witnesses. In short, it was not persuaded that, in relation to any of these individuals, there was a good reason to depart from the presumption that hearings will take place in public and that the identity of witnesses will be referred to in public. The panel had firmly in mind the importance of open justice and the need for any interference to be exceptional and justified. 7 The panel noted that some of the witnesses were the alleged recipients of comments that included sexual elements. The Procedures support the fact that allegations of a sexual nature may warrant special consideration when witnesses are the alleged victims. However, the panel recognised that there is a spectrum of sexual misconduct. Other than in relation to Staff Member 8 and Staff Member 9, the panel did not consider that the nature of the allegations could be said to fall at the most serious end of that spectrum and nor did they warrant any other staff members being considered as victims. Mr Scott's conduct was not alleged to amount to sexual harassment in relation to anyone else other than Staff Member 8 and Staff Member 9. In all the circumstances, the panel was not persuaded that these other witnesses would feel inhibited from speaking freely, due to the nature of these allegations. There was no evidence they had positively sought to be anonymised or requested any other special measures. The panel accordingly directed that Staff Member 8 and Staff Member 9 should be anonymised for the purposes of this hearing. For the sake of completeness, the panel confirmed that this decision is limited to the hearing itself. It does not apply to the publication of information at the conclusion of the professional conduct panel process, which will be a matter for the TRA. Application to admit hearsay evidence The TRA was intending to call 10 witnesses. In addition, the panel was presented with the accounts of other individuals, obtained during the course of the earlier investigation, which were also relied upon. The TRA sought to adduce that evidence as hearsay evidence. It was submitted on behalf of the TRA that this did not give rise to any unfairness and this evidence was not sole or decisive evidence in support of any of the allegations. Further, it was suggested that to call each and every individual would be disproportionate. Mr Scott did not oppose the application. The panel concluded that this eviden