Mr Paul Welch

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 Welch

Teacher reference number: 0157451

Teacher's date of birth: 02 May 1979

Location teacher worked: Bristol, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 July to 19 July 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 Welch formerly employed in Bristol, 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 Welch: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Welch Teacher ref number: 0157451 Teacher date of birth: 2 May 1979 TRA reference: 19626 Date of determination: 19 July 2024 Former employer: Gordano School, Bristol Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 18 to 19 July 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Paul Welch. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist) and Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Charlotte Watts of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Welch was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public (save for parts which were heard in private) and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 3 May 2024. It was alleged that Mr Welch was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 22 February 2022 at Bristol Crown Court, he was convicted of 3 counts of possessing an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child on dates between 03.06.2008 - 03.06.2020. The panel noted that Mr Welch admitted the allegation, as set out in the response to the final notice of hearing dated 14 May 2024 and in the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Welch on 3 November 2022 and subsequently by the presenting officer on 9 November 2022. Preliminary applications The first application for the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered a written application from Mr Welch dated 4 June 2024 for the whole hearing to proceed in private and to keep any identifying details following the outcome to a bare minimum. First, the panel considered the application for the hearing to be heard in private. The application was based on the impact on Mr Welch’s [REDACTED] Mr Welch, in his written application, explained that since he voluntarily attended the police station to report himself, [REDACTED] In his application, Mr Welch also provided a letter from [REDACTED] a statement from [REDACTED]and an email from the [REDACTED] at Avon and Somerset Police. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer on the application before reaching its decision. The presenting officer did not have any objection to the application. The panel was referred to paragraph 5.85 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (“the Procedures”) and paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, which together indicate that a panel may exclude the public from a hearing, or any part of a hearing, where: (a) it appears to the panel to be in the interests of justice or in the public interest to do so; (b) the teacher requests that all or part of a hearing is heard in private and the panel does 5 not consider it to be contrary to the public interest to do so; and (c) it is necessary to protect the interests of children or vulnerable witnesses. The panel understood there is a presumption that hearings will take place in public. The panel was referred to the case of R v Legal Aid Board Ex p. Kaim Todner [1999] QB 966 which commented as follows in respect of the need for hearings to take place in public: “It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially. It can result in evidence becoming available which would not become available if the proceedings were conducted behind closed doors or with one or more of the parties’ or witnesses’ identity concealed. It makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely”. Further, the panel was referred to the case of Miller v General Medical Council [2013] EWHC 1934, in which the High Court summarised the key principles for consideration as follows: • “A distinction is to be drawn between parties and witnesses and as to parties between those who initiate and those who defend proceedings; • Generally parties and witnesses have to accept the risk of embarrassment and consequential loss and damage as a result of giving evidence at a public hearing because (a) the protection to which they are normally entitled is a judgment that refutes unfounded allegations and (b) any other approach results in an unacceptable inroad into the general principle. Subject to that: o A person who initiates proceedings will generally be taken to have accepted the public nature of the proceedings initiated; o A Defendant has not chosen to initiate proceedings that are normally conducted in public and so may have a greater legitimate interest in a claim to protection; o A witness with no interest in the proceedings has the strongest claim to protection “… if he or she will be prejudiced by publicity …”; o Generally, where a party or witness seeks protection, the reasonableness of the claim for protection is important; o A party cannot be allowed to achieve anonymity by insisting upon it … irrespective of whether the demand is reasonable. There must be some objective foundation for the claim which is being made.” 6 In addition, the panel was referred to the case of Lu v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2022] EWHC 1729, in which the High Court commented, on the subject of the hearing being held in private, “It appears from the judgment that sitting in private was convenient rather than necessary”. Finally, the panel was referred to the right to a public hearing being subject to a number of provisos in section Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that: “… Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interests of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.” Whilst the panel was sympathetic to the possible impact on [REDACTED], it had no documentary evidence of the actual impact this matter has had on [REDACTED] The panel considered that as Mr Welch had been convicted at a public hearing, and, therefore, the details of his conviction and the information contained within the sentencing report would already be public knowledge. Furthermore, the panel was mindful that there is a public interest in professional conduct panel hearings being heard in public and a presumption that such hearings will be heard in public. The panel was also mindful that the decision would be announced publicly even if all or part of the hearing were heard in private. The panel considered whether this would impact Mr Welch’s ability to participate in the hearing. The panel also considered whether Mr Welch’s application was necessary in the interests of justice; in the public interest; or for the protection of the interests of children. The panel did not consider that it would be in the interests of justice or in the public interest for the entire hearing to be heard in private. In light of the concern about the impact on Mr Welch’s ability to participate in the hearing, the panel went on to consider whether part of the hearing could be heard in private. The panel concluded that it was content that any areas relating to [REDACTED] could be heard in private, should there be a need to do so. The panel considered that these areas legitimately related to aspects of Mr Welch’s private life, and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in public. The hearing was still being held in public, and these were discrete and limited areas that would not undermine the public's ability to otherwise understand the case. The panel, therefore, granted the application that [REDACTED] would be heard in private. 7 Application to anonymise the decision, including the name of a school and the name of the witnesses The panel then considered Mr Welch’s application to anonymise the details of the case and any identifying details, as set out in the written application from Mr Welch on 4 June 2024, referred to above. The application was made for the same reasons as outlined above in the application above for the hearing to be heard in private; namely, the application was based on the impact on Mr Welch’s [REDACTED] The presenting officer confirmed that the TRA’s position regarding the application was largely neutral. The panel considered a letter from Mr Welch’s [REDACTED] school, a statement from [REDACTED], and an email from Avon and Somerset Police. The panel received legal advice and was referred to paragraph 5.88 of the Procedures which states that a panel may, if it considers it in the interest of justice, direct that: • “the name and identity of a school will not be disclosed during the professional conduct panel hearing or at all; and/or” • “the name and identity of any individual referred to in the documents before a panel or who gives