Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions herself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

96/39087

Teacher's date of birth:

9 April 1975

Location teacher worked:

Cornwall, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel:

7 and 8 September 2015

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 Wheeler, formerly employed in Cornwall, South West England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 7 and 8 September 2015.

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 Wheeler: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2015 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 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 Alan Wheeler Teacher ref number: 96/39087 Teacher date of birth: 9 April 1975 NCTL case reference: 10521 Date of determination: 8 September 2015 Former employer: Treviglas Community College, Cornwall A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 7 and 8 September 2015 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Paul Wheeler. The panel members were Mr John Pemberton (teacher panellist – in the chair), Professor Janet Draper (lay panellist) and Mr Michael Sanderson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Thomas Whitfield of Eversheds LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Wheeler was present and was represented by Ms Carys Williams of Counsel. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 12 May 2015. It was alleged that Mr Wheeler was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in that whilst employed as a teacher at Treviglas Community College, between 2008 and 2013: 1. He failed to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A in that in or around May 2009, he: a. texted Pupil A; b. met with her outside of school on at least one occasion; c. allowed Pupil A to kiss him on the cheek; d. had sexual intercourse with Pupil A on at least one occasion. 2. He received a Final Written warning on 9 June 2009 for the conduct described at allegations 1.a. to 1.c. despite which, whilst Pupil A was still a student at Treviglas High School until July 2010, he: a. left messages in draft for Pupil A on the email account [redacted] for her to access; b. received messages from Pupil A on the email account [redacted] which were left in draft for him to see; c. texted Pupil A; d. met with Pupil A outside of school on one or more occasions; e. kissed Pupil A on one or more occasions; f. went with Pupil A to his house in Cardiff where they stayed together overnight; g. allowed Pupil A to stay over at his home in St Agnes; h. had sexual intercourse with Pupil A on one or more occasions, including: i. in his car; ii. in his house in Cardiff; iii. in his home; 5 3. Between July 2010 and Summer 2011, after Pupil A had left Treviglas High School, he; a. left messages in draft for Pupil A on the email account [redacted] for her to access; b. received messages from Pupil A on the email account [redacted] which were left in draft for him to see; c. kissed Pupil A on one or more occasions; d. had sexual intercourse with Pupil A on one or more occasions shortly after she had left school. 4. His conduct in regard to allegations 1 to 3 was sexually motivated. Mr Wheeler admitted allegations 1a to c, allegations 2a to d, and allegation 3. Mr Wheeler denied allegations 1.d., 2.e. to 2.h. and allegation 4. C. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application made on behalf of Mr Wheeler that the hearing be held in private. The panel decided that the public interest required that the hearing should be public. The panel also considered an application made on behalf of Mr Wheeler that the name and identity of Treviglas College not be disclosed during the hearing or at all. The panel decided that this would be contrary to the interests of justice. D. 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 - page numbers from 2 to 4. Section 2: Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response, with page numbers from 6 to 12. Section 3: National College for Teaching and Leadership Witness Statements, with page numbers from 14 to 18. Section 4: National College for Teaching and Leadership Documents, with page numbers from 20 to 275. 6 Section 5: Teacher Documents, with page numbers from 277 to 287. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. In addition, the panel agreed to accept a letter dated 24 July 2015, which was given page number 288. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: Pupil A, called by the National College; The headteacher of Treviglas College, called by the National College; A former detective constable who had been involved in the investigation of allegations regarding Mr Wheeler, called by the National College; and Mr Wheeler. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Wheeler commenced work as a teacher at Treviglas College (the “College”) in 1998. In or around May 2009, Mr Wheeler met with Pupil A, away from the College’s premises. At that time, Pupil A was aged 17. In late May 2009, a former boyfriend of Pupil A reported to the then headteacher of the College that Mr Wheeler was engaging in sexual intercourse with Pupil A. At that time both Mr Wheeler and Pupil A denied that they were engaging in sexual intercourse. The College investigated the allegation made by Pupil A’s former boyfriend, but found it to be unsubstantiated. Mr Wheeler was however given a formal written warning, following findings that he had met with Pupil A away from the College’s premises and had lied to the headteacher about Pupil A’s parents consenting to this. In February 2013, Pupil A’s father contacted the headteacher of the College, informing her that Mr Wheeler and Pupil A had in fact engaged in sexual intercourse on more than one occasion. The College investigated the allegation and dismissed Mr Wheeler from 7 his employment. The matter was also investigated by the Police but, to the panel’s knowledge, no charges were brought. The matter is now to be considered by this panel. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: Whilst employed as a teacher at Treviglas Community College, between 2008 and 2013: 1. You failed to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A in that in or around May 2009, you: a. texted Pupil A; b. met with her outside of school on at least one occasion; c. allowed Pupil A to kiss you on the cheek; … You have admitted allegations 1. a. to c. and they are consistent with the rest of the evidence before the panel, including the evidence of Pupil A. On these bases the panel finds these allegations proven. 2. You received a Final Written warning on 9 June 2009 for the conduct described at allegations 1.a. to 1.c. despite which, whilst Pupil A was still a student at Treviglas High School until July 2010, you: a. left messages in draft for Pupil A on the email account [redacted] for her to access; b. received messages from Pupil A on the email account [redacted] which were left in draft for you to see; c. texted Pupil A; d. met with Pupil A outside of school on one or more occasions; You have admitted allegations 2. a. to d. and they are consistent with the rest of the evidence before the panel, including the evidence of Pupil A and the copies of messages from the identified e-mail account that have been provided to the panel. On these bases the panel finds these allegations proven. 8 2. You received a Final Written warning on 9 June 2009 for the conduct described at allegations 1.a. to 1.c. despite which, whilst Pupil A was still a student at Treviglas High School until July 2010, you: … e. kissed Pupil A on one or more occasions; You denied allegation 2.e. The panel has heard oral evidence from Pupil A, during which she stated that you kissed her during the period of time in question. You initially told the panel during oral evidence that your relationship with Pupil A did not become sexual in nature until after she had left the College. The panel found Pupil A to be a credible and compelling witness. Prior to the hearing she had been a reluctant witness, who appeared before the panel only after the presenting officer obtained a direction that Pupil A attend and secured the possibility of evidence being given by video link. When Pupil A did attend to give evidence, she was clear and consistent about those events that she could recollect well and was frank in admitting that she could not recollect other details. However, the panel did take into account that her recollection of the length of the relationship with you was not consistent. Pupil A’s evidence was tested by cross-examination and withstood that form of scrutiny. Your evidence was less credible and less compelling. Your account to this panel of the timing of the relationship, upon which most of this case turned, was inconsistent with the records of your interviews by the Police. Your account also seemed to be contradicted by e-mails that you accept had been exchanged between you and Pupil A at the time, as we will note in more detail in relation to other allegations. Your account to this panel also changed during the course of your oral evidence, as we will again note in more detail in relation to another allegation. Taking this into consideration, the panel found Pupil A to be a far more credible witness than you have been. In relation to the facts of this allegation, Pupil A was clear that you kissed her on the lips during the period covered by this allegation. The facts of this allegation are also consistent with the panel’s other findings as to the nature of your relationship at this time. On these bases, the panel finds this allegation proven. 2. You received a Final Written warning on 9 June 2009 for the conduct described at allegations 1.a. to 1.c. despite which, whilst Pupil A was still a student at Treviglas High School until July 2010, you: … f. went with Pupil A to your house in Cardiff where you stayed together overnight; 9 … You denied allegation 2.f. You informed the panel that the facts alleged took place, but on a date after Pupil A left the College. Pupil A was clear in her evidence that the facts alleged took place before she left the College. As already detailed, the panel found Pupil A to be a credible and compelling witness and has found you to be less so. In relation to this allegation, the panel was also assisted by the draft e-mail saved by you on 23 April 2010 at 18:24, which you have accepted was a message from you to her, via your shared e-mail account. In that e-mail you wrote “I want you and I am not prepared to loose you. The last time I cried like that was when you told me about [redacted] and you, and in Cardiff. I havent felt this emotional since I was a teenager” (spelling as per the original message). In April 2010, Pupil A was still a student at the College and you were referring to a situation in Cardiff that had already occurred, in the context of a message concerning your shared experience, relationship and emotional ties. Your explanation that this may have been a reference to another unidentified event, that may have occurred in Cardiff and that had not involved you and Pupil A, was not accepted by the panel. The panel considers that this was a reference to Pupil A’s having stayed at your house in Cardiff with you, on a date prior to 23 April 2010 (an event that you accept occurred, but say happened later). On these bases, the panel finds allegation 2.f. proven. 2. You received a Final Written warning on 9 June 2009 for the conduct described at allegations 1.a. to 1.c. despite which, whilst Pupil A was still a student at Treviglas High School until July 2010, you: … g. allowed Pupil A to stay over at your home in St Agnes; You denied allegation 2.g. You informed the panel that the facts alleged took place, but on a date after Pupil A left the College. Pupil A was clear in her evidence that the facts alleged took place before she left the College. As already detailed, the panel found Pupil A to be a credible and compelling witness and has found you to be less so. In relation to this allegation, the panel was also assisted by two draft e-mails, which you have accepted were messages from you to her, via your shared e-mail account. Firstly, the panel noted the contents of the draft e-mail saved by you on 18 April 2010 at 11:10, in which you asked “can you come over tomorrow (either by bus or with me – can you stay?)”. Secondly, the panel noted the draft e-mail saved by you on 26 April 2010 at 22:58. In that e-mail you wrote “I do feel we were both a little more open this evening and I 10 appreciate you telling me things – like the breakfast in bed thing – and upsetting things like the condom wrapper etc.” Pupil A explained this as being a reference to an event where she had gone into the bathroom of your home at St Agnes and had seen a condom wrapper in the bin, which she believed must have been used by you and your wife. You did not provide a convincing alternative explanation for the reference in your e-mail to the condom wrapper. The panel considers that this message was a reference to Pupil A’s having stayed at your home in St Agnes with you, on a date prior to 26 April 2010 (an event that you accept occurred, but say happened later). On these bases, the panel finds allegation 2.g. proven. 2. You received a Final Written warning on 9 June 2009 for the conduct described at allegations 1.a. to 1.c. despite which, whilst Pupil A was still a student at Treviglas High School until July 2010, you: … h. had sexual intercourse with Pupil A on one or more occasions, including: … ii. in your house in Cardiff; iii. in your home; You denied allegations h.ii. and h.iii. You have accepted that you have had sexual intercourse with Pupil A in your house in Cardiff and you have accepted that you have had sexual intercourse with Pupil A in your home. You have denied however that these events occurred prior to Pupil A leaving the College. The panel has found, in relation to allegations 2.f. and 2.g., that Pupil A stayed overnight at your house in Cardiff and at your home, prior to 26 April 2010, whilst Pupil A was still at the College. The panel is satisfied, on the basis of the evidence of Pupil A and the intimate nature of the contemporaneous messages between you and Pupil A, that you were engaging in sexual intercourse by April 2010. In particular, the panel notes Pupil A’s message to you of 22 April 2010 at 11:42 in which she stated “… all I can think about now is your sexy face and bum. I really miss your touch!” and your message to Pupil A of 26 April 2010 at 22:58 in which you stated “Your so sexy, I just want to kiss and touch you all over” (spelling as per original message). 11 The panel notes that you have admitted that you did engage in sexual intercourse with Pupil A at your house in Cardiff and home, but have denied that this took place on the dates alleged. The panel is satisfied that it is more likely than not that you did engage in sexual intercourse with Pupil A at your house in Cardiff and your home, on dates between 9 June 2009 and July 2010. On this basis, the panel finds these allegations proven. 3. Between July 2010 and Summer 2011, after Pupil A had left Treviglas High School, you; a. left messages in draft for Pupil A on the email account [redacted] for her to access; b. received messages from Pupil A on the email account [redacted] which were left in draft for you to see; c. kissed Pupil A on one or more occasions; d. had sexual intercourse with Pupil A on one or more occasions shortly after she had left school. You admitted these allegations and they were consistent with the rest of the evidence before the panel. The panel therefore finds these allegations proven. The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proven, for these reasons: Whilst employed as a teacher at Treviglas Community College, between 2008 and 2013: 1. You failed to maintain professional boundaries by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A in that in or around May 2009, you: … d. had sexual intercourse with Pupil A on at least one occasion. 2. You received a Final Written warning on 9 June 2009 for the conduct described at allegations 1.a. to 1.c. despite which, whilst Pupil A was still a student at Treviglas High School until July 2010, you: … h. had sexual intercourse with Pupil A on one or more occasions, including: i. in your car; 12 You denied these allegations, admitting that they took place but asserting that they did so after Pupil A left the College. Pupil A’s evidence was that you did have sexual intercourse with her in your car. As noted previously, the panel found Pupil A to be a credible witness. However, in relation to these specific allegations, Pupil A was frank about the level of her recollection of events said to have occurred up to over six years ago, and as such she could not be sure of the dates of these events. Moreover, only one instance of intercourse in your car was specifically referred to in oral evidence, with it being unclear as to whether it was said to have taken place before May 2009 or between 9 June 2009 and July 2010. Given the uncertainty around the date on which this event is said to have taken place (or indeed events are said to have taken place) and the lack of other evidence to anchor it in time, the panel cannot be satisfied that the National College has discharged its burden of proof in relation to either of these allegations. The panel finds allegations 1.d. and 2.h.i. not proven. 4. Your conduct in regard to allegations 1 to 3 was sexually motivated. You denied this allegation, stating that your conduct was sexually motivated only from the point in time that Pupil A left the College. During cross-examination however, when being referred to e-mail messages that you sent in April 2010, you accepted that these messages showed that your conduct was sexually motivated at least from a point in time in that month, before Pupil A left the College. Moreover, the panel has found that you had engaged in sexual intercourse with Pupil A by April 2010. It is absolutely clear to the panel that your conduct in relation to allegations 2 to 3 was sexually motivated. However, the allegation is that your conduct in relation to allegations 1 to 3 was sexually motivated. The panel has not received sufficient evidence that your proven conduct falling within allegation 1 was sexually motivated. It has not been proven that you and Pupil A engaged in sexual intercourse in or around May 2009 and there is insufficient evidence before the panel that your text messages to Pupil A, your meeting with her outside school at that time or your allowing Pupil A to kiss you on the cheek were sexually motivated. In the circumstances, the panel finds this allegation not proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct Having found a number of the allegations to have been proven, the panel has gone on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct. 13 The panel notes that, despite his having received considerable safeguarding training, Mr Wheeler failed to report to the College his meetings with Pupil A outside of the College’s premises, or concerns he had regarding Pupil A. This is contrary to the College’s policies and procedures, as shown to the panel. Further, Mr Wheeler was given a formal written warning in 2009, from which it was plain to Mr Wheeler that his meeting with Pupil A outside of the College was inappropriate. Despite this clear indication, Mr Wheeler, persisted with, and further developed, his relationship with Pupil A, including through surreptitious meetings and a covert method of communication. Mr Wheeler, as a teacher at the College, was in a position of trust. He failed to maintain proper boundaries between a teacher and a student and thus breached that trust. In considering whether Mr Wheeler’s actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”. The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Wheeler in relation to the facts found proven, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by reference to Part Two, Mr Wheeler is in breach of the following standards:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position; o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions;  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach ... The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Wheeler fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel has also considered whether Mr Wheeler displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice. The panel has found, on the basis of the proven allegations, that Mr Wheeler has displayed behaviours associated with an offence involving sexual activity, although to the panel’s knowledge, Mr Wheeler has not been charged with, or convicted of, such an offence. 14 The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. In all of the circumstances, the panel concludes that Mr Wheeler’s misconduct was of a serious nature, falling significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. The panel notes that the facts of allegation 3 took place after Pupil A left the College and so could be said to have taken place outside of the education setting. Given the panel’s findings that the sexual relationship with Pupil A commenced whilst she was still a pupil at the College, it is clear to the panel that the misconduct exposed Pupil A to behaviour in a harmful way, being sexual intercourse with someone who was supposed to be in a position of trust and who has abused that position. Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that Mr Wheeler is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct, it is necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it is in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and having done so has found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely the protection of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. Mr Wheeler has engaged in sexual intercourse with a pupil at the College. Moreover, Mr Wheeler was given a formal written warning about the nature of his relationship with Pupil A and measures were put in place by the College to monitor and limit his conduct in order to avoid future problems in his professional relationship with Pupil A, or other pupils. It appears to the panel that Mr Wheeler almost completely ignored this written warning, save that Mr Wheeler took further steps to conceal the relationship thereafter. In fact, despite the warning, the relationship with Pupil A appears to have deepened and continued for at least a year. In doing so, Mr Wheeler has abused the trust of his colleagues as well as that of Pupil A. 15 In these circumstances, there is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils. Similarly, the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Wheeler were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel considers that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Wheeler was far outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Wheeler. In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Wheeler. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In the list of such behaviours, those that are relevant in this case are:  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk;  abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) or violation of the rights of pupils; and  sexual misconduct, eg involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position. Even though there were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being appropriate, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating factors to militate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the behaviour in this case. There was no evidence that Mr Wheeler’s actions were not deliberate. On the contrary, they were plainly deliberate. Mr Wheeler continued and deepened the relationship with Pupil A, even after receiving a formal warning and took steps to conceal the relationship. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Wheeler was acting under duress, and in fact the panel found his actions to be calculated. 16 The panel accepts that Mr Wheeler did have a good history prior to 2009 and has taken this into account. The panel is of the view that prohibition is both proportionate and appropriate. The panel has decided that the public interest considerations outweigh the interests of Mr Wheeler. Mr Wheeler’s determined pursuit of a sexual relationship with a current pupil, despite the disciplinary hearing and formal written warning received from the College in 2009 amounted to a serious and cynical abuse of trust. This was a significant factor in the panel forming its opinion. Accordingly, the panel makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for them to decide to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel were mindful that the Advice indicates that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances in any given case that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice also indicates that there are behaviours that, if proven, would militate against a review period being recommended, but has not found any of these to be relevant. The panel went on to consider whether Mr Wheeler has shown any insight into his actions, or any remorse. The panel found no indication of any insight or any remorse. On the contrary, Mr Wheeler continued to insist that he had not engaged in sexual intercourse with Pupil A whilst she was at the College, despite this being contrary to her evidence; his own evidence to the Police; and contemporaneous documents. The panel has not seen any evidence that Mr Wheeler has apologised to Pupil A, or to his colleagues for breaching their trust or bringing the College into disrepute, since 2009. The panel felt the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and as such decided that it would be proportionate in all the circumstances for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have carefully considered the findings and recommendations of the panel in this case. The panel has found a range of allegations proven in respect of Mr Wheeler’s failure to maintain proper professional boundaries by engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a pupil. It has determined that the proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct. 17 In considering whether to recommend prohibition as an appropriate and proportionate sanction the panel has considered the public interest and have found a number to be relevant in this case, namely:  the protection of pupils  declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct  maintenance of public confidence in the profession Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations, the panel has considered whether there are mitigating factors to be taken into account. The panel is clear that Mr Wheeler’s actions were deliberate and that he was not acting under duress. The panel has noted that Mr Wheeler had a good history up to 2009 and has taken this into account. However, the panel has recommended that prohibition is an appropriate and proportionate sanction and I agree with their recommendation. Mr Wheeler has shown no insight or remorse into his behaviour, indeed he continued to insist that he had not engaged in sexual intercourse with Pupil A whilst she was at the college despite this being contrary to the significant weight of evidence. I agree that the order should be without the opportunity to apply to have it set aside. This means that Mr Paul Wheeler is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Paul Wheeler shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Paul Wheeler has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Paul Heathcote Date: 9 September 2015 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.