Mr Rhodri Younger

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 Rhodri Younger

Teacher reference number: 0317772

Teacher's date of birth: 5 May 1980

Location teacher worked: Wakefield, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 23 to 25 January 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 Rhodri Younger, formerly employed in Wakefield, Yorkshire and the Humber.

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 Rhodri Younger: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Rhodri Younger Teacher ref number: 0317772 Teacher date of birth: 5 May 1980 TRA reference: 18245 Date of determination: 25 January 2023 Former employer: Wakefield Music Services, teaching at the Outwood Grange Academy Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 23 to 25 January 2023 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Rhodri Younger. The panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr John Martin (teacher panellist) and Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Abigail Trencher of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Charlotte Wade of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Younger was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 10 November 2022. It was alleged that Mr Younger was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Between September 2017 and April 2018, via WhatsApp with Pupil A, he: a) Messaged Pupil A on almost a daily basis with the exception of 18 calendar days within this period; b) Sent Pupil A approximately 2,539 messages (of a total in excess of 4,500 messages exchanged); c) Referred to Pupil A by various nicknames, including: i. “Beastie”; ii. “TBN” (an abbreviation for “Tiny Beastly Ninja”); and iii. “My fav[ourite]”; d) Made references to “cwtch” and requested a “cwtch” from Pupil A on numerous occasions; e) Ended messages with a “x”; f) Commented on Pupil A’s appearance and personality, writing: i. “can I just have some of your slimness”; ii. “I didn’t manage to say it, but you looked lovely this eve!”; iii. “you are very loved & loveable”; iv. “you are an attractive & beautiful person who does not need to change!”; v. “You’d be a good catch for any lucky lad”; vi. “you looked very nice this eve! The colour & style really suits you!”; and vii. “you have a wonderful & gorgeous smile & laugh! I was totally blown away with what u were wearing”; 5 g) Commented on his relationship with Pupil A, writing: i. “there’s still much I’d like to get to know about you”; ii. “I like what we have”; iii. “one day some who loves you very much will make you feel complete & totally love yourself! I wish I could start that process for you & just be there for you”; iv. “you drive me crazy in lots of ways”; v. “you are much more than an it to me & you know that”; vi. “I wish I could tell you everything that’s going on inside it [head]”; vii. “will we ever ‘talk’??”; viii. “I’d love to hear you be honest & upfront with everything…including feelings”; ix. That he had “been thinking about [Pupil A] all day”; x. “I hope one day we can speak openly & honest with each other. I know your feelings are probably nothing & that’s ok”; xi. “am I kidding myself in thinking that you feel anything regards moi?”; xii. “I know its strange but I thought we had some kind of special connection…I’m not after anything in particular, I just wanted to be honest with you & build on that”; and xiii. “you mean a lot to me in more ways than you’ll ever realise!”; h) Expressed his wish to spend time alone with Pupil A: i. “I can’t wait to take you out for a drink…I want to see your full dark side”; and ii. “I do wish there was more time to spend with you & get to know you”; 2. He gave Pupil A a Christmas present and a birthday present; 3. His conduct set out in the following paragraphs was sexually motivated: a) Paragraph 1(c); b) Paragraph 1(d); 6 c) Paragraph 1(e); d) Paragraph 1(f); e) Paragraph 1(g); and f) Paragraph 1(h); 4. By his conduct set out in the foregoing paragraphs, he failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position. Mr Younger admitted allegations 1, 2 and 4, as set out in the summary of agreed and disputed facts. Mr Younger denied allegation 3 in its entirety. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Younger was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Younger. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the notice of proceedings had been sent to Mr Younger in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the ‘2018 Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr Younger’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. In particular it considered the notice of proceedings completed and signed by Mr Younger on 11 March 2020 which confirmed he would not be attending the hearing, and more recent communications from his trade union representative which confirmed the position had not changed. The panel noted that Mr Younger had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Younger was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as possi ble in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Younger was neither present nor represented. 7 Application to admit additional documents The panel considered four documents which it received from the TRA at the beginning of the hearing. These documents were a mitigation statement from Mr Younger dated 10 March 2020, Mr Younger’s completed notice of proceedings dated 11 March 2020 and two emails which confirmed the changes Mr Younger requested be made to the statement of agreed facts and his submission of the mitigation statement and notice of proceedings. The panel was satisfied that for the purposes of paragraph 4.18 of the 2018 Procedures the documents were relevant to the issues before the panel and that in the interests of justice they should be admitted in to evidence, particularly as the mitigation statement and completed notice of proceedings had been submitted within the time period required. Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend allegations 1a, 1c.ii and 1h.i so that: Allegation 1a stated “Messaged Pupil A on almost a daily basis within this period”, rather than “Messaged Pupil A on a daily basis with the exception of 18 calendar days within this period”. Allegation 1c.ii.stated “TBN (an abbreviation for “Tiny Beastly Ninja”)” instead of “TBN (an abbreviation for “Truly Beastly Ninja”)”. Allegation 1h.i stated “I can’t wait to take you out for a drink…..I want to see your full dark side” instead of “I can’t wait to take you out for a drink…..I want to see your dark side” The panel noted that the Mr Younger had not been informed of the proposed changes to the allegations but that the change to allegation 1.h.i was proposed in order to reflect the statement of agreed facts in which it was agreed the reference to TBN was an abbreviation for Tiny Beastly Ninja. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 4.56 of the 2018 Procedures. The panel considered whether the proposed amendments would change the nature and scope of the allegations and the panel was satisfied they would not. The amendments propose to allegation 1.a would simplify the wording of the allegation and the proposed change to allegation 1h.i would merely reflect the full wording of the message it was citing, and which was in the bundle, and which the teacher had accepted he had sent. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. 8 The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. Accordingly, the panel granted the application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the