Mr Richard Fitton

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 Fitton

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 08 January 2025 to 10 January 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Fitton formerly employed in London, 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 Fitton: 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 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Richard Fitton TRA reference: 22518 Date of determination: 10 January 2025 Former employer: Heathside School, Hampstead, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 8 to 10 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Richard Fitton. The panel members were Mrs Anne Davis (teacher panellist), Mr Neil Hillman (teacher panellist – in the chair) and Ms Chloe Nash (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Hesleton of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Fitton 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 23 October 2024 and as amended by the preliminary applications referred to below. It was alleged that Mr Fitton was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at the Heathside School Hampstead between September 2017 and July 2023: 1. He engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour towards one or more female pupils, in that he; a) showed favouritism towards one or more female pupils in or around 2023, by asking/allowing them to; i. answer questions; and ii. take on special tasks; b) stood close to and/or touched/held the hand(s) of one or more female pupils in or around 2023; c) gave Pupil B one or more biscuits and/or snacks when she sat by him in or around 2023; d) ran his hands down Pupil A from shoulders to elbows on one or more occasions; e) looked one or more female pupils up and down in or around June 2023; f) stood close to Pupil C and/or looked at Pupil C’s breasts at the school sports day in or around June 2023; and g) maintained eye contact with Pupil C on a school trip in or around 2023; 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at: a) 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated; and b) 1 above was despite having received a written warning relating to inappropriate behaviour in or around April 2022. Mr Fitton provided no admission of fact. 5 Preliminary applications Day 1: 8 January 2025 Application to admit an additional document The panel considered a preliminary application from the presenting officer for the admission of an additional document. The presenting officer’s document was an attendance note dated 6 January 2025 from the presenting officer’s firm detailing attempts to call Mr Fitton by telephone numbers which may have been in use by Mr Fitton. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer in respect of the application. The panel considered the submissions to determine whether it would be fair to admit the evidence. The panel considered that the additional document was relevant to the application to proceed in the absence of Mr Fitton. Accordingly, the document was added to the bundle. Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Fitton was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Fitton. 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 Fitton in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel had sight of the Notice of Hearing sent to Mr Fitton by email and post on 23 October 2024. The panel also had sight of the track and trace reports from November 2023 and May 2024 in the bundle. The panel had sight of the various letters addressed to Mr Fitton at different addresses, and the three letters returned to the Presenting Officer’s firm indicating that Mr Fitton was not at those addresses. The panel also had sight of emails in the bundle sent to Mr Fitton on June 2024 and 16 August 2024, inviting him to provide a postal address. The panel did not see any evidence that Mr Fitton had responded to these emails. 6 The panel noted that Mr Fitton had not engaged with the Teaching Regulation Agency proceedings and that no response was provided. The panel concluded that Mr Fitton’s absence was voluntary. The panel noted that Mr Fitton 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 Fitton 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 were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Fitton was neither present nor represented. First application to amend the allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegation. The proposed amendment was: • Adding the word “Hampstead” after “Heathside School”. The panel noted that Mr Fitton had not been informed of the proposed change to the allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendments would not change the nature and scope of the allegations in that they would merely clarify which of the Heathside Schools Mr Fitton was employed at, as there were two Heathside Schools. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. 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]. The panel considered whether granting the application for the proposed amendments would cause unfairness and/or prejudice to Mr Fitton on the basis that he had not been informed of the amendments, nor had he been given the opportunity to respond to the amended allegations. 7 The panel concluded that neither the nature nor scope of the allegations would be affected by a decision to grant the application to amend, and no unfairness or prejudice would be caused to Mr Fitton in his absence. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. Day 2: 9 January 2024 Second application to amend the allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegation. The proposed amendment was to amend allegation 1 (e) to remove the wording relating to the stairs and to read as: • “looked one or more female pupils up and down in or around June 2023” The panel noted that Mr Fitton had not been informed of the proposed change to the allegations. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the 2020 Procedures. The panel considered that the proposed amendments would not change the nature and scope of the allegations, as the core misconduct in the allegation was that Mr Fitton had allegedly looked one or more female pupils up and down, and not that this had been done whilst they went up the stairs. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendments did not amount to a material change to the allegations. The panel considered 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]. The panel considered whether granting the application for the proposed amendments may cause unfairness and/or prejudice to Mr Fitton on the basis that he had not been informed of the amendments, nor had he been given the opportunity to respond to the amended allegations. However, the panel concluded that neither the nature nor scope of the allegations would be affected by a decision to grant the application to amend and that no unfairness or prejudice would be caused to Mr Fitton in his absence. Accordingly, the panel granted this application and considered the amended allegations, which are as set out above. 8 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Preliminary documents – pages 6 to 7 • Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 9 to 20 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 22 to 37 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 39 to 146 • Section 5: Teacher