Mr Philip Turner

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

Teacher's name: Mr Philip Turner

Teacher reference number: 1725675

Teacher's date of birth: 18 February 1968

Location teacher worked: North Somerset, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 March 2020 to 3 March 2020

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 Philip Turner formerly employed in North Somerset, South West England.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 2 March 2020 to 3 March 2020

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 Philip Turner: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State March 2020 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 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Philip Turner Teacher ref number: 1725675 Teacher date of birth: 18 February 1968 TRA reference: 18264 Date of determination: 3 March 2020 Former employer: Mary Elton Primary School, Clevedon Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 March 2020 to 3 March 2020 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Philip Turner. The panel members were Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Gail Goodman (teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Hawkins (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Anna Marjoram of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Philip Turner was not 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 6 January 2020. It was alleged that Mr Philip Turner was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Mary Elton Primary School (“the School”) between 2012 and 2019 he: 1. Between August and December 2017 posted, and/or between August 2017 and September 2018 failed to remove, one or more posts and/or images on his Facebook page which demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for individuals of an Islamic faith and/or different nationality to himself; 2. During one or more lessons with pupils he expressed inappropriate views and/or discussed inappropriate topics leading to one or more pupils suggesting that: a. on or around 13 July 2018, “All Mexicans were criminals and/or bad” or words to that effect; b. on or around 4 September 2018, if a person of an ethnic minority is unhappy with a country’s policies they should “leave the country”. Mr Turner did not admit the allegations. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer for the hearing to proceed in the absence of Mr Turner. The panel was satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understands that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention 5 from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. Mr Turner was given 8 weeks’ notice of the hearing, notice was sent to a known address and Mr Turner has provided his response to confirm that he would not attend. Mr Turner has been made aware that he could seek an adjournment to attend in future, however, he has indicated that he does not wish to make an application for an adjournment, and he does not wish to attend. The panel, therefore, considered that the teacher has waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There is no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending the hearing. Mr Turner has also indicated that he does not wish to be legally represented at the hearing. The panel had regard to the extent of the 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 has the benefit of representations made by Mr Turner in advance of this hearing, and his submissions as part of the School’s investigations, and the panel is able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel has the teacher’s evidence addressing mitigation and is able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon are to be called to give evidence and the panel can test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel may take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel is 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 had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for the teacher and accepted that fairness to the teacher is of prime importance. However, it considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing in the absence of Mr Turner. 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 2 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and response – pages 4 to 14 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 16 to 23 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 299 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 301 to 310 The panel members confirmed that they had read all the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses, all called by the presenting officer: Witness A, [REDACTED] Witness B, [REDACTED] Witness C, [REDACTED] 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 Turner was first employed at the School as a newly qualified class teacher in September 2010. Mr Turner was employed in a permanent teaching position as a class teacher from September 2012. In or around September 2018, the School was notified of concerns raised by parents through the School’s chair of governors. These concerns related to a comment allegedly made by Mr Turner in the classroom in or around July 2018 and the content of Mr Turner’s Facebook posts. This report prompted the School to access Mr Turner’s Facebook posts and, subsequently, to seek advice from the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) for Allegations against Adults (“DOFA”) and the Clevedon Learning Trust. 7 Following this consultation, the School commenced an internal investigation regarding the concerns raised, and on 6 September 2018, Mr Turner was suspended pending investigation. On 11 January 2019, Mr Turner attended a disciplinary hearing at the School, and on 15 January 2019, he was summarily dismissed. On 24 January 2019, Mr Turner contacted the School to appeal the decision to summarily dismiss him. On 1 March 2019, a disciplinary appeal hearing was held, although Mr Turner was unable to attend. On 5 March 2019, the School wrote to Mr Turner to confirm that the disciplinary appeal was not upheld. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between August and December 2017 you posted, and/or between August 2017 and September 2018 you failed to remove, one or more posts and/or images on your Facebook page which demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for individuals of an Islamic faith and/or different nationality to yourself; The panel considered all the evidence before it. The panel noted that Mr Turner has accepted that the account in question was his Facebook account. The panel heard evidence from Witness A [REDACTED] and Witness B [REDACTED], who were both able to verify the identity of this account from personal posts made by Mr Turner, including identifiable pictures of Mr Turner and his dogs. Both witnesses stated that they had been able to access Mr Turner’s Facebook page despite not being “friends” of Mr Turner at the time these posts came to the attention of the School. In particular, Witness A [REDACTED] took significant steps to confirm this account was publicly accessible. Once the School’s investigation had commenced, the account was no longe