Mr Peter Sylvester

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 Peter Sylvester

Teacher reference number: 3460179

Teacher's date of birth: 9 October 1962

Location teacher worked: Huddersfield, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 31 May to 2 June 2023

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 Peter Sylvester, formerly employed in insert town or city, region.

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 Peter Sylvester: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Peter Sylvester Teacher ref number: 3460179 Teacher date of birth: 9 October 1962 TRA reference: 19847 Date of determination: 2 June 2023 Former employer: Greenhead College, Huddersfield Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 31 May 2023 via MS Teams to consider the case of Mr Peter Sylvester, also known as Mr Timothy Peter Sylvester. The panel members were Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Susan Ridge (lay panellist) and Ms Melissa West (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Alexandra Byard of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Tom Sherrington of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Sylvester 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 8 March 2023. It was alleged that Mr Sylvester was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: Mr Sylvester has been convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence in that; 1. In or around 2021, he was convicted at West Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court for the offence of assault on 10 October 2020 contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. He is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Greenhead College between September 2009 and February 2021; 2. He informed the School on or around 5 November 2020 that he had never previously been involved in a violent incident and/or shown violent behaviour when in fact; a. he had been involved in a violent incident involving Individual A in or around 1996; b. he was convicted on or around 11 March 1997 at Bradford Crown Court of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; c. he had been subject to a risk assessment in respect of your conduct at allegation 2a on or around 2 February 2009. 3. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Sylvester admits allegation 1, denies allegation 2 save for the factual basis of 2(a), (b) and (c), and denies allegation 3. Preliminary applications The presenting officer applied to admit two documents: (1) Mr Sylvester’s response to the “Notice of Proceedings form” dated 30 March 2023 (4 pages); and (2) a Police National Computer (“PNC”) print-out dated 8 June 2021 (3 pages) . Those documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.36 of the 2020 Procedures, and as such the panel is required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer and there were no objections raised 5 by Mr Sylvester. The panel therefore found that the two documents were relevant and it would be fair to admit the documents. The documents were therefore admitted. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 22 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 23 to 109 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 110 to 137 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 140 to 152 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: 1. Mr Sylvester’s response to the “Notice of Proceedings form” dated 30 March 2023 (4 pages) – the Chair noted that there was a space in the bundle at pages 23 and 24 – and so this document can be inserted as pages 23, 23A and 24, 24A 2. The PNC print-out dated 8 June 2021 (3 pages) – the Chair noted this can appear at the end of the bundle at pages 153 to 155. 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 decided to admit were read during the course of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: 1. Witness A 2. Witness B Both witnesses were called by the TRA. The panel also heard evidence from Mr Sylvester. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 6 Mr Sylvester had been employed at Greenhead College as an Assistant Systems Manager between September 1993 and 1998. He then re-joined the College in February 2009 as a teacher of IT, and later became a Personal Tutor and teacher of the Extended Project Qualification. On 3 June 2021, he was convicted at West Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court for the offence of assault. Greenhead College suspended Mr Sylvester on 12 October 2020 and Mr Sylvester resigned on 22 February 2021. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against Mr Sylvester proved, for these reasons: Mr Sylvester has been convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence in that; 1. In or around 2021, he was convicted at West Yorkshire Magistrates’ Court for the offence of assault on 10 October 2020 contrary to Section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer and accepted the memorandum of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The allegation of conviction was therefore, factually found proved. Mr Sylvester is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Greenhead College between September 2009 and February 2021; 2. He informed the School on or around 5 November 2020 that he had never previously been involved in a violent incident and/or shown violent behaviour when in fact; a. he had been involved in a violent incident involving Individual A in or around 1996; b. he was convicted on or around 11 March 1997 at Bradford Crown Court of the offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm; c. he had been subject to a risk assessment in respect of your conduct at allegation 2a on or around 2 February 2009. The presenting officer clarified, and Mr Sylvester confirmed, that [REDACTED] who was the subject of allegation 2(b). The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer and heard evidence from Mr Sylvester and concluded that allegation 2(a) was factually proved. 7 The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer and accepted the PNC as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction in respect of allegation 2(b). The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer and heard evidence from Mr Sylvester. Mr Sylvester confirmed that he was subject to a risk assessment in 2009 in relation to his conduct at 2(a). The risk assessment formed part of the bundle and the panel had considered the same. The purpose of the risk assessment was further confirmed by Witness A and Witness B during their evidence. Allegation 2(c) was therefore, factually found proved. Having satisfied themselves of the facts and the necessarily implied facts of the conviction, the panel then addressed the overarching allegation in 2 that Mr Sylvester informed the School on 5 November 2020 that he had never previously been involved in a violent incident and/or shown violent behaviour. The panel heard evidence from Witness A, Witness B and Mr Sylvester. The panel also considered the minutes taken at the 5 November 2020 meeting which recorded the questions asked and the answers. The panel tested the accuracy of the minutes taken, which recorded the words said by Mr Sylvester, and which form allegation 2. The panel noted that Mr Sylvester accepted that his answers were as set out in the minutes and the panel found that the minutes were accurate in respect of the allegation. The panel went on to consider the entirety of the minutes and, having heard from Witness A and Witness B, found that on the balance of probabilities, the entirety of the minutes taken by Witness A were substantially accurate. The panel therefore found that Mr Sylvester informed the School on or around 5 November 2020 that he had never previously been involved in a violent incident and/or shown violent behaviour and this allegation 2 is therefore found factually proven. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against Mr Sylvester not proved, for these reasons: 3. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 2 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. The panel considered the test in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd. The test required the panel to first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. The panel heard evidence from Mr Sylvester and recognised that he had put forward a defence in that he had misunderstood the question he was being asked. Consequently, in answering, by stating that he had never been involved in a violent incident, he was i