Mr Paul Strange

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 Strange

Teacher reference number: 0346198

Teacher's date of birth: 07 July 1960

Location teacher worked: staffordshire, England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 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 Strange, formerly employed in staffordshire, 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 Strange: 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 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 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 Strange Teacher ref number: 0346198 Teacher date of birth: 7 July 1960 TRA reference: 19298 Date of determination: 18 October 2022 Former employer: Landau Forte Academy QEMS, Tamworth (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 18 October 2022, remotely via MS Teams, to consider the case of Mr Paul Strange. The panel members were Mr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Penny Griffith (lay panellist), and Mr Clive Sentance (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Phil Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Strange was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of hearing dated 3 August 2022. It was alleged that Mr Strange was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 27 April 2021, he was convicted of two counts of making an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child/children contrary to section 1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. 2. On or around 27 April 2021, he was convicted of one count of possessing prohibited images of a child/children contrary to section 62(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 3. On or around 27 April 2021, he was convicted of one count of possession of extreme pornographic images of intercourse/oral sex with a dead/alive animal contrary to section 63(1)(7)(d) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. The teacher did not respond to the allegations. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the TRA to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel heard written and oral submissions from the presenting officer and took advice from the legal adviser. The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the notice of hearing complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”), including that more than 10 weeks written notice of the hearing had been given. The panel took as its starting point the principle from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1 that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional was of prime importance but that it also encompassed the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in the case of GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162. 5 In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. In this case, the evidence before the panel showed that the TRA had made extensive efforts to contact the teacher, even going to such lengths as to instruct a third party to verify the teacher’s address. The panel was satisfied that the teacher was aware of the proceedings but had failed to respond or engage in any way. The panel considered that the teacher had deliberately absented himself from the hearing and had thereby waived his right to be present at the hearing, in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. The panel did not consider, given the circumstances, that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily. The panel took into account that there was no legal representative present for the teacher, and also took into account the extent of any 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 not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it. Should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel would be able to consider whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and to consider whether the presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also 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. The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that, if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. 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 panel noted that there were no witnesses to be called, and therefore the effect of delay on the memories of witnesses was not a factor to be taken into consideration in this case. 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, the seriousness of the allegations, and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause, it was in the public interest for the hearing to proceed. 6 The panel therefore determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 1 and 2 Section 2: Notice of hearing – pages 3 to 9 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 10 to 66 In addition, in advance of the hearing, the panel received the following further documents:  Skeleton submissions on behalf of the TRA (6 pages)  Service bundle (26 pages) The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel was provided with. Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Strange commenced employment as a Tutor of Engineering at the School on 1 October 2019. He was employed by Landau Forte Charitable Trust (the “Trust”). On 17 April 2020, the Trust received notification via its electronic monitoring system that Mr Strange had apparently viewed pornographic material on the Trust’s laptop. A safeguarding report was made by the Trust. On 23 April 2020, Mr Strange was arrested at his home by Nottinghamshire Police. On the same day he was suspended from the Trust pending disciplinary investigation, on the basis of alleged gross misconduct. 7 On 27 April 2021, a plea and trial preparation hearing was held at Nottingham Crown Court. At the hearing, Mr Strange pleaded guilty to and was convicted of 2 counts of making an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child/children, one count of possession of prohibited images of children, and one count of possession of extreme pornographic images. He was sentenced at Nottingham Crown Court on 7 July 2021. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: You are guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that you: 1. On or around 27 April 2021, were convicted of two counts of making an indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child/children contrary to section 1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. 2. On or around 27 April 2021, were convicted of one count of possessing prohibited images of a child/children contrary to section 62(1) Coroners and Justice Act 2009. 3. On or around 27 April 2021, were convicted of one count of possession of extreme pornographic images of intercourse/oral sex with a dead/alive animal contrary to section 63(1)(7)(d) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008. In each case, the panel considered that the allegations were supported by the evidence presented to it, in particular a Police National Computer print produced on 14 September 2021 noting the convictions; and a certificate of conviction dated 13 April 2022 recording convictions at Nottingham Crown Court on 27 April 2021 and sentencing on 7 July 2021, which the panel accepted as proof of the commission of the offences concerned. There was no evidence put before the panel which suggested that they were not convictions as alleged. The allegations were therefore found proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegatio