Mr Peter Trevelyan

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 Trevelyan

Teacher reference number: 773863

Teacher's date of birth: 29 March 1955

Location teacher worked: Feltham, west London

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 April 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 Peter Trevelyan, formerly employed in Feltham, west London.

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 James Trevelyan: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 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 Peter James Trevelyan Teacher ref number: 773863 Teacher date of birth: 29 March 1955 TRA reference: 19504 Date of determination: 25 April 2022 Former employer: Vibe Teaching Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 25 April 2022 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Peter Trevelyan. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist) and Ms Nicola Hartley (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Natalie Kent of Birketts LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Trevelyan that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Trevelyan provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Michael O’Donohoe of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors, Mr Trevelyan or any representative for Mr Trevelyan. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the amended notice of meeting dated 22 April 2022. It was alleged that Mr Trevelyan had been convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 15 November 2019 he struck one or more pupils with a ball during a PE lesson, for which on or around 24 July 2020, he was convicted at Central London Magistrates’ Court of five offences by beating. Mr Trevelyan admitted the facts of the allegation and that his behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Trevelyan on 9 September 2021. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology – pages 1 to 2 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 3 to 12 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 13 to 18 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 44 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 45 to 106 There are also 5 unnumbered pages at the end of the bundle which consist of an amended notice of hearing and related emails. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Amended notice of meeting dated 22 April 2022. 5 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting and additional document admitted by the panel. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Trevelyan on 9 September 2021. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Trevelyan for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Trevelyan registered with Vibe Teaching (‘the Agency’) on 16 September 2019. On 15 November 2019, Mr Trevelyan was placed in a supply placement at Thomas’ Academy (‘the School’). On the afternoon of 15 November 2019, an incident occurred in a PE lesson regarding alleged physical assaults on pupils at the School. Mr Trevelyan was asked by the headteacher to leave the School. A parent of one of the pupils who took part in the PE lesson made a complaint to the police on 16 or 17 November 2019. On 18 November 2019, the headteacher reported the incident to the LADO. The LADO and the police both investigated the incident. On 19 December 2019, Mr Trevelyan was interviewed by the police under caution. On 2 April 2020, Mr Trevelyan was consequently charged with five counts of assault by beating. Mr Trevelyan pleaded guilty and was convicted of all five offences at the Central London Magistrates Court on 24 July 2020. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 6 1. On or around 15 November 2019 you struck one or more pupils with a ball during a PE lesson, for which on or around 24 July 2020, you were convicted at Central London Magistrates’ Court of five offences by beating. The panel considered a statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Trevelyan on 9 September 2021. In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Trevelyan admitted that on 24 July 2020 at Central London Magistrates Court, he was convicted of five counts of assault by beating, contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Mr Trevelyan admitted that he was sentenced to a community order with an unpaid work requirement of 80 hours to be supervised by the responsible officer; to pay a victim surcharge of £90; and to pay costs of £85 to the Crown Prosecution Service. The panel was provided with a copy of the Certificate of Conviction from Central London Magistrates Court, which confirmed Mr Trevelyan’s convictions in respect of the offences referred to within the allegation. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction, at any time, of a criminal offence, the hearing will not re-examine the facts of the case and the panel will accept the conviction as conclusive proof that establishes the relevant fact. The panel considered the ‘police report - case summary’ and the record of interviews but noted that in light of the Advice, the pupils’ statements were not as central to the fact finding process as they may have been had there not been a conviction. Therefore, on examination of the documents before the panel, the panel was satisfied that the facts of the allegation were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of that proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Trevelyan, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Trevelyan was 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 7 o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence had an impact on the safety and well-being of pupils which was demonstrated by the pupils’ accounts to the police in which one pupil stated they were “angry cos I’m going to remember that now”. The panel noted that none of the pupils were seriously hurt but also noted that there was a risk that they could have been and that the behaviour which led to the conviction raised serious safeguarding concerns. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Trevelyan’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Trevelyan’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. This was a case involving an offence of violence, which the Advice states is more likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction, and that it involved violent behaviour towards young children, was relevant to Mr Trevelyan’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was 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 had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders s