Mr Richard Cosburn

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 Cosburn

Teacher reference number: 9435128

Teacher's date of birth: 6 December 1966

Location teacher worked: Norfolk, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 6 January 2025

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 Cosburn formerly employed in Norfolk, East of 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 Cosburn: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Richard Cosburn Teacher ref number: 9435128 Teacher date of birth: 6 December 1966 TRA reference: 19855 Date of determination: 6 January 2025 Former employer: Stradbroke Primary Academy, Great Yarmouth Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 6 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Richard Cosburn. The panel members were Mrs Pat Hunt (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist) and Mrs Hannah Foster (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors on behalf of the TRA. Mr Cosburn 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 Hearing dated 9 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Cosburn was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 9 February 2023 you were convicted at Norwich Crown Court of the following offences: a) Four counts of assault of a child under 13 by penetration b) One count of sexual assault of a child under 13 c) One count of sexual assault of a child d) Eight counts of rape of a child under 13 e) Three counts of taking indecent photographs of a child f) One count of indecent assault on a male person g) Two counts of rape h) Three counts of making indecent photographs of a child Mr Cosburn made no admission of fact. Preliminary applications At the outset of the hearing the panel considered the fact that the matter was listed as a hearing, but that Mr Cosburn had completed and signed the Notice of Referral form indicating that he wanted the allegations to be considered without a hearing and that he did not request an in-person hearing. The panel therefore raised whether or not the matter should be dealt with by way of a meeting rather than a hearing. The presenting officer made submissions to proceed by way of the scheduled hearing. The panel noted that Mr Cosburn had not signed or returned a Statement of Agreed Facts although did note that he had received the Notice of Hear ing and that he had responded to this via a member of [REDACTED] indicating that he did not want to attend any hearings. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this matter, in particular paragraph 5.129 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching 5 profession May 2020 (‘the Procedures’). The panel noted that the Notice of Referral form was not determinative and that, in order for the matter to be dealt with as a meeting, Mr Cosburn would need to have signed and completed the Statement of Agreed Facts in advance. In light of the above, the panel proceeded with this matter as a hearing. Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Cosburn was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Cosburn. 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 Hearing had been sent to Mr Cosburn in accordance with the Procedures. The panel concluded that Mr Cosburn’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Cosburn 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 Cosburn was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Cosburn was neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence 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 Hearing and response to Notice of Hearing – pages 6 to 12 • S ection 3: TRA documents – pages 13 to 99 6 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing in addition to the 62 page service bundle and written submissions from the presenting officer. Witnesses There were no witnesses called to give evidence at the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. From 1995 to 2019 Mr Cosburn worked in various teaching roles. Between 2001 and 2016 the alleged offending behaviour occurred. On 9 October 2020, Mr Cosburn was arrested. On 9 February 2023, Mr Cosburn was convicted at Norwich Crown Court. Mr Cosburn was sentenced at Norwich Crown Court on 19 July 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On 9 February 2023 you were convicted at Norwich Crown Court of the following offences: a) Four counts of assault of a child under 13 by penetration b) One count of sexual assault of a child under 13 c) One count of sexual assault of a child d) Eight counts of rape of a child under 13 e) Three counts of taking indecent photographs of a child f) One count of indecent assault on a male person g) Two counts of rape h) Three counts of making indecent photographs of a child 7 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 panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Norwich Crown Court, dated 9 February 2023, which detailed that Mr Cosburn had been convicted of: • 4 counts of assault of a child under 13 by penetration • 1 count of sexual assault of a child under 13 • 1 count of sexual assault of a child • 8 counts of rape of a child under 13 • 3 counts of taking indecent photographs of a child • 1 count of indecent assault on a male person • 2 counts of rape • 3 counts of making indecent photographs of a child In respect of the convictions, Mr Cosburn was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 12 years on 19 July 2023. In light of the above, the panel found the allegations proven. 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 conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Cosburn, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Cosburn was in breach of the following standards although the panel noted that there were no allegations specifically relating to Mr Cosburn’s pupils and were relating to young children: 8 • 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 o not undermining fundamental British values, including…the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect… • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach… • 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/or working in an education setting. The panel noted specifically that the work of a teacher involves working with children who are vulnerable and that the allegations against Mr Cosburn for which he had been convicted involved serious offences. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing these offences could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Cosburn’s behaviour in committing these offences could undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly giv