Mr Richard Chipchase

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 Richard Chipchase

Teacher reference number: 9348815

Teacher's date of birth: 11 May 1965

Location teacher worked: Merseyside, north west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 February 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 Richard Chipchase, formerly employed in Merseyside, north west England

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 Richard Chipchase: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Richard Chipchase Teacher ref number: 9348815 Teacher date of birth: 11 May 1965 TRA reference: 19959 Date of determination: 14 February 2023 Former employer: Woodchurch High School ("the School"), Birkenhead Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 February 2023 via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Chipchase. The panel members were Miss Asma Majid (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Suhel Ahmed (teacher panellist) and Ms Caroline Downes (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr James Lloyd of counsel, instructed by Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Chipchase 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 2 December 2022. It was alleged that Mr Chipchase was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 2 March 2021, he was convicted of 3 counts of sexual activity with a female child under 16, contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. 2. On 2 March 2021, he was convicted of 1 count of attempting to cause/incite a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, contrary to Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In his response to the notice of referral, dated 6 July 2022, Mr Chipchase admitted the allegations and that they amount to a conviction for a relevant offence. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Chipchase. 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; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 5.23 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. The panel then considered whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the teacher's absence. It was satisfied that the Notice was served in accordance with the Procedures. It then considered whether it would be fair and in the public interest to proceed, and decided it was. The panel considered that in his correspondence, the teacher had indicated he had no intention of attending a hearing, and therefore voluntarily waived his right to attend. The panel had regard to the age of the allegations and the public interest in bringing the matter to a conclusion. It was satisfied it was fair to proceed. Summary of evidence 5 Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 12 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 13 to 175 Section 5: Teacher documents – none In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Notice of referral response form completed and signed by Mr Chipchase 6 July 2022 • Email chain between Kingsley Napley LLP and Mr Chipchase 23 August 2022 and 22 September 2022 • Email exchange between the TRA and Mr Chipchase 16 November 2022 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. Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence. 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 Chipchase was employed at the School as a member of the Maths Department in 1997, and became Head of the Maths Department in 2008. In 2009, after some concerns had been raised about his relationships with female pupils, the School arranged pre- disciplinary counselling and he was provided with a mentor. In 2011, the School completed an investigation into concerns that had been raised, and his employment ceased. No report was made to the police until 2020. The police then interviewed Pupil F, who had attended the School between [REDACTED]. She was described as emotionally vulnerable, and needing a higher level of support. She disclosed to the police that Mr Chipchase had initially been friendly towards her, but then began to show her preferential treatment. Matters came to the School's attention, and 6 they took steps to ensure Mr Chipchase was not alone with her. But he provided her with his mobile phone number. Pupil F described a course of sexual activity which began when she was [REDACTED] and continued until she was [REDACTED]. Mr Chipchase engaged in grooming behaviour towards her, including buying her cigarettes and alcohol and giving her lifts in his car. On one occasion when she was [REDACTED], he stroked her back and commented positively on her appearance. When she was [REDACTED] when they were alone in a store room, he said he would not let her out until she hugged him. She was scared by this. At around the same time, while giving her a lift in his car, he committed a sexual assault, by placing his hand on her knee, then under her skirt and touching her vagina underneath her clothing. Mr Chipchase was charged and on 2 March 2021, pleaded guilty at Liverpool Crown Court to four sexual offences. He was sentenced to a total of 27 months' imprisonment and made subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 7 years, as well as being placed on the sex offenders register for 10 years. 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: 1. On 2 March 2021, you were convicted of 3 counts of sexual activity with a female child under 16, contrary to Section 9 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This allegation was admitted by Mr Chipchase in his response to the TRA's notice of referral dated 6 July 2022, and was supported by evidence presented to the panel, in particular, a certificate of conviction dated 12 July 2022. This allegation was therefore found proved. 2. On 2 March 2021, you were convicted of 1 count of attempting to cause/incite a female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity, contrary to Section 10 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. This allegation was admitted by Mr Chipchase in his response to the TRA's notice of referral dated 6 July 2022, and was supported by evidence presented to the panel, in particular, a certificate of conviction dated 12 July 2022. This allegation was therefore found proved. 7 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a relevant conviction. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of the teacher, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Chipchase 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 o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.  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 individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and well-being of pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Chipchase'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 the teacher’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. 8 The panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction wa