Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

9740168

Teacher's date of birth:

18 May 1972

Location teacher worked:

Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

13 to 14 August 2015

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 Greene, formerly employed in the Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 13 to 14 August 2015.

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 Greene: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2015 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 3-4 C. Preliminary applications 4-7 D. Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 8-16 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16-17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18-19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Richard Greene Teacher ref number: 9740168 Teacher date of birth: 18 May 1972 NCTL case reference: 11235 Date of determination: 14 August 2015 Former employer: A school in the Midlands A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 5 August 2015 (by telephone), and on 13 to 14 August 2015 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Richard Greene. The panel members were Ms Nicole Jackson (lay panellist – in the chair), Councillor Gail Goodman (teacher panellist), and Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Robin Havard of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ben Bentley of Browne Jacobson solicitors. On 5 August 2015, Mr Richard Greene attended by telephone and was not represented. Mr Greene did not attend at the hearing on 13 and 14 August 2015 nor was he represented. Other than where indicated to the contrary, the hearing took place in public and was recorded. B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 11 June 2015 as amended. It was alleged that Mr Richard Greene was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that he: 4 1. Sexually assaulted a child, Individual A, on numerous occasions whilst working in his capacity as an athletics coach in the period 1993 – 1996. 2. Developed inappropriate relationships and displayed inappropriate behaviour with pupils whilst working as a teacher at a school in the Midlands between 2000 – 2001 in that he: a. Bought expensive gifts; b. Organised “selective” lunchtime gym clubs; c. Met pupils at weekends; d. Contacted pupils on their mobile phones; e. Proposed a “sleep over”; f. Had wrestling sessions with pupils. 3. And in doing so in relation to allegations 1 and/or 2 his behaviour was sexually motivated. Mr Greene denied all of the allegations. C. Preliminary applications Preliminary applications considered at the hearing on 5 August 2015 by telephone: Proceeding in absence The presenting officer applied to the panel for a direction that the substantive hearing listed to commence on 13 August 2015 should proceed in the absence of Mr Greene. In an undated document entitled “supporting statement”, Mr Greene had confirmed that, whilst he denied the allegations made against him, “After long and thoughtful consideration I would like to decline my invitation to attend this hearing.” Furthermore, in an email of 20 July 2015 to the National College, he reconfirmed his intention not to attend the hearing. Finally, at the hearing on 5 August 2015, Mr Greene stated that he was aware of all the issues to be taken into account when considering whether it would be appropriate or helpful for him to attend the hearing, but he still did not intend to do so. The panel has considered the application of the presenting officer for the substantive hearing to proceed in the absence of Mr Greene. 5 The panel was satisfied that Mr Greene was fully aware of the dates of the hearing and also of the seriousness of the allegations being made against him. He had also confirmed his awareness of the nature of the sanction the panel may recommend to the Secretary of State if that stage in the proceedings was reached. Taking account of the content of the document entitled “supporting statement” prepared by Mr Greene, his email of 20 July 2015, and his comments made at the hearing on 5 August 2015, the panel was satisfied that Mr Greene’s decision not to attend was entirely voluntary and he had therefore waived his right to appear. The panel believed there was no purpose in adjourning the matter in that there was no reason to believe that Mr Greene would change his mind and attend at the adjourned hearing. It was in the general public interest that the hearing should take place within a reasonable time. It was also in the interests of those who have been requested to attend to give evidence. In the circumstances, if Mr Greene does not attend on 13 August 2015, the panel has decided that the hearing will proceed in his absence. Application for hearing to be in private This application was considered in private but the decision was announced in public. In his document entitled “supporting statement”, repeated in his email of 20 July 2015 and his submissions on 5 August 2015, Mr Greene applied for a direction that the hearing should be held in private. The basis on which this application was made was that if the hearing were to be held in public, this would cause significant stress and upset to Mr Greene’s family. The application was resisted by the presenting officer. He maintained that none of the criteria in paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (“the Disciplinary Procedures”) had been satisfied. However, Mr Bentley did indicate that he would not object to allegation 2 being amended to the extent that the school identified in that allegation was anonymised and replaced with words such as “…at a school in the Midlands…”. Whilst sympathetic to the submission of Mr Greene that he would wish to avoid any further distress or anxiety being caused to his family, the panel concluded that this was not ordinarily a factor which would persuade a panel to hold a hearing in private and, on balance, this is outweighed by the public interest in the hearing taking place in public. The panel also took account of the fact that, in accordance with paragraph 4.59 of the Disciplinary Procedures, the decision of the panel whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute has to be announced in public. 6 Notwithstanding that, the panel concluded that it would be appropriate to amend allegation 2 by anonymising the name of the school so that the allegation reads “…at a school in the Midlands…”. Subject to that amendment, the panel directed that the hearing shall be in public. Attendance of witness The presenting officer indicated that he wished to call a police officer to give evidence, namely Witness B, but, in accordance with police policy and procedure, Witness B would only attend if directed to do so by the panel. Mr Greene made no observations in relation to this application. It appeared to the panel that Witness B was in a position to provide evidence which may be material to the issues to be determined in this case. Therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 4.38 and 4.70 of the Disciplinary Procedures, the panel issued a direction that Witness B is required to attend to give evidence at the substantive hearing of this case. Preliminary applications heard on 13 August 2015 Jurisdiction Mr Greene had raised the point in his written submissions that the facts of allegation 1 had occurred before he became a teacher. It was also understood that Mr Greene was no longer teaching. As for the facts particularised in allegation 2, Mr Greene had made written submissions that these facts had been considered by the Secretary of State in 2005, and, by letter of 8 March 2005, had confirmed that no further action would be taken. He therefore argued that it was inappropriate for him to face these matters again. The panel was satisfied that it had jurisdiction to hear the allegations. Having accepted the advice it had received, the panel concluded that not only was it entitled to consider conduct which predated Mr Greene’s qualification as a teacher but also to consider allegations even though Mr Greene was not currently employed as a teacher. With regard to allegation 2, it was accepted that an investigation by the Department for Education and Skills (“DfES”) commenced in October 2003 into the conduct alleged in the particulars of the allegation. This investigation concluded in 2005. Mr Greene received a letter from DfES dated 8 March 2005 in which it stated that no further action would be taken. However, the letter also stipulated that Mr Greene’s details would remain on record and may be taken into account in the event of any further misconduct coming to the Department’s attention. 7 It was not until 2007 that Individual A reported to the police the events which took place in the period 1993–1996. Those matters were subsequently brought to the attention of the Department and the National College. Therefore, the panel concluded that, in light of the provision contained in the Department’s letter of 8 August 2005, the National College was entitled to revisit, and bring an allegation in relation to, the issues of conduct which form the particulars of allegation 2. Relevant Teacher Standards/Code of Conduct The panel itself raised the issue of the applicable advice relating to allegation 1 which covered a period from 1993 to 1996 and allegation 2 which covered 2000 to 2001. With regard to the periods during which the conduct alleged in allegations 1 and 2 took place, the panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to consider the personal and professional conduct aspects of the Teachers’ Standards document. This was established practice when considering new cases of serious misconduct received after 1 April 2012. A new case relates to when the Notice of Proceedings was served. The Notice of Proceedings was served on Mr Greene by letter of 11 June 2015. In any event, the panel bore in mind that the Teachers’ Standards were there as advice for the panel. In reaching its conclusions whether any allegations which may be found proved amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, these were matters for the judgement of the panel, applying the appropriate definitions found in the NCTL advice. The same was true if and when the panel reached the stage when it had to recommend to the Secretary of State whether a prohibition order should be made or not. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 2 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 4 to 9 Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 11 to 39 Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 41 to 159 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 161 to 164 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. 8 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: Individual A – complainant Witness B – police officer Mother of Pupil B Mother of Pupil D E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: We have now carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision. We confirm that we have read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Brief summary In or about June 1998, Mr Greene qualified as a teacher. However, prior to his qualification, to include the period 1993 to 1996, he performed the role of an athletics coach at his local athletics club. During this time, it was alleged that he sexually assaulted Individual A who, in that period, was aged 13 to 16 years. At that stage, the alleged conduct was not brought to the attention of any authority. By 2000, Mr Greene had taken up a teaching position at a school in the Midlands as a PE teacher. In or about 2000 and 2001, pupils attending the school in the Midlands were being taught by Mr Greene. Parents of those pupils became concerned at the activities being practised by Mr Greene which appeared inappropriate and which led to disciplinary proceedings being brought against him by the school. This resulted in him receiving a written warning by letter of 19 July 2001. In the meantime, on 4 March 2001, Mr Greene applied for a post at another school. Following a successful interview, the school offered the post to Mr Greene by letter of 23 April 2001 which he accepted. He was due to take up his post with effect from September 2001. 9 At the time of the appointment, the headteacher and governors of the school were unaware of the allegations of inappropriate professional behaviour and the subsequent warning issued to Mr Greene by the school in the Midlands which was administered prior to Mr Greene taking up his post in September 2001. Subsequently, by letter of 6 February 2002, Mr Greene resigned from the new school but his alleged conduct whilst at the school in the Midlands was referred by [redacted] County Council to the Pupil Support and Independent Schools Division of the DfES. In addition, there were allegations with regard to his conduct when acting as a football coach which led to a decision by the FA that he should be permanently suspended from coaching under-18 year olds. In October 2003, the DfES wrote to Mr Greene setting out the alleged activities which gave rise to the referral, asking for his response. Subsequently, by letter of 8 March 2005, the DfES wrote to Mr Greene indicating that the Secretary of State had decided that no further action would be taken in relation to those issues although his details would remain on record and may be taken into account in the event of any further misconduct coming to the Department’s attention. In August 2007, Individual A notified the police of the alleged sexual assaults to which he was subjected by Mr Greene in the period 1993 to 1996. After an investigation, no criminal charges were brought against Mr Greene. The matters were subsequently referred to the NCTL. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: We have found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. Sexually assaulted a child, Individual A, on numerous occasions whilst working in your capacity as an athletics coach in the period 1993 – 1996. The panel had the benefit of listening to Individual A giving evidence. The panel found that, whilst this was clearly a difficult and stressful process in recounting what was a distressing stage in his life, he gave his evidence in an entirely credible and straightforward manner. The panel found Individual A to be a reliable witness. In addition, whilst neither his mother nor father were aware of Mr Greene’s improper conduct towards their son, in their written accounts provided to the police, both confirm the manner in which Mr Greene befriended them and the extent to which Mr Greene involved himself in the family. 10 The panel also took note of the written statement of Individual A’s partner, and the fact that Individual A had provided her with a full account of what had taken place. By contrast, Mr Greene had decided not to attend the hearing and therefore the panel had not been able to hear and test his account. Notwithstanding that, the panel gave careful consideration to the written submissions of Mr Greene. Both the presenting officer and the panel ensured that Mr Greene’s version of events was put to Individual A. In or about 1993, Individual A started at high school. He was 13 years old. He was a talented runner and it was suggested by his headteacher that he should join the local athletics club. Mr Greene was a coach at the club and started to coach Individual A. As time progressed, Mr Greene, who was approximately 9 years older than Individual A, developed a friendship not only with Individual A but also his family, in particular, Individual A’s mother and father. Mr Greene started to stay at Individual A’s home if they had to leave early the following morning to travel to an athletics meeting. This progressed so that Mr Greene would simply stay for weekends. When Mr Greene stayed at the house, he would sleep on a mattress on the floor in the same room as Individual A. Mr Greene would also go away with the family for example for camping weekends. Whilst he was not able to be specific about the exact date, Individual A confirmed that it was when they were away camping that Mr Greene asked him whether he had kissed a girl and Mr Greene then kissed Individual A. On another occasion when Mr Greene was staying at the house and was therefore sleeping in the same room as Individual A, Individual A awoke to find that Mr Greene had placed his hand down the front of Individual A’s pyjamas and was touching Individual A’s penis. Individual A started to cry such that his mother came into the room to find out what was wrong. Mr Greene stated that Individual A had had a bad dream. When Individual A’s mother left the room, Mr Greene became angry with Individual A indicating that he had nearly landed him in serious trouble. Subsequently, and on repeated occasions over the ensuing three years, Mr Greene took advantage of Individual A, indulging in sexual activities involving masturbation. The panel was entirely satisfied that Individual A’s recollection of events was accurate in terms of detail and background. The panel also found that Mr Greene had manipulated Individual A into allowing him to behave in this way. The panel accepted Individual A’s evidence that he was naive and under the influence of Mr Greene such that he was unable to provide any informed consent to what was being done to him. Mr Greene would make Individual A feel guilty if he did not accede to his wishes, calling him selfish. He would also convince Individual A that what they were doing was normal, but at the same time saying that “… it is our little 11 secret” or “…No one needs to know” or “…I am just preparing you for when you have a girlfriend of your own”. The panel accepted Individual A’s explanation for not reporting the matter to the police until 2007. He confirmed that he continued to feel guilty and also that he was in denial about what had taken place. However, as time progressed, he came to realise how wrong Mr Greene’s behaviour had been and felt that he had a responsibility to report the matter. He was also receiving counselling which enabled him to confront and talk about what had taken place. The panel was also satisfied that this was not a case of Individual A having a grudge or that the connection with Mr Greene had come to an end acrimoniously. It was in fact Individual A’s mother who, having found out about the events, told Mr Greene that he was to have no further contact with Individual A or the family. Finally, it was accepted that Mr Greene was invited to [redacted]. However, this was before Individual A’s mother became aware of the abuse and it was at her suggestion, although [redacted] did not go ahead. It was also true that it was suggested at one stage that Mr Greene would take a room in the house occupied by Individual A [redacted] but again this did not happen. Both issues arose at a time when Individual A was still feeling guilty about what had happened and was also in denial. In any event, this had no relevance to the inappropriateness of Mr Greene’s behaviour nor did it affect the findings of the panel in respect of this allegation. As a consequence, the panel found that Mr Greene sexually assaulted Individual A on numerous occasions whilst working in his capacity as an athletics coach in the period 1993-1996. 2. Developed inappropriate relationships and displayed inappropriate behaviour with pupils whilst working as a teacher at a school in the Midlands between 2000 – 2001 in that you: a. Bought expensive gifts; The panel heard evidence from the mothers of Pupils B and D who, in early 2001, had brought their concerns to the attention of the school in relation to Mr Greene’s behaviour. In both cases, Mr Greene had developed a relationship not only with the pupil but also the pupil’s family, spending a great deal of time with them, staying at their homes and going on trips. Once again, the panel was impressed with the clear and measured way in which both parents gave their evidence which the panel accepted. 12 Gifts made by Mr Greene to the pupils included: hair gel; cycling shirts and hats; clothing for tennis and regular presents of chocolate which according to the mother of Pupil B, seemed almost daily. In respect of the hair gel, Pupil B arrived home one day with gel in his hair which he said had been applied by Mr Greene. b. Organised “selective” lunchtime gym clubs; It was admitted by Mr Greene that the lunchtime gym club was designed to be restricted to high achievers. At the outset, there were only two pupils attending the club. Pupil B had told his mother that a pupil, “had to be chosen to become a member of the club”. When a friend of Pupil B had come to tea, he said that he would like to join the gym club, to be told by Pupil B that, “you have to be asked”. c. Met pupils at weekends; Having befriended the families, Mr Greene would then meet the pupils on weekends. The mother of Pupil B gave an example of Mr Greene taking her child to a snow park which she was very uneasy about, but did not stop her child from going. The mother of Pupil D confirmed that Mr Greene would often stay at their home on weekends in order to take part in bicycle rides on the Saturday and/or Sunday. This had developed from a situation where Mr Greene would come to the house for tea and then cycle around [redacted] with both Pupil D and his younger brother. On one occasion, Mr Greene and Pupil D went on a cycling trip, staying in a dormitory in a youth hostel where they were the only two occupants. d. Contacted pupils on their mobile phones; Both mothers confirmed that Mr Greene would regularly contact Pupils B and D on their mobiles, primarily by text. Whilst it was suggested by Mr Greene that he would send texts in order to arrange meetings, one text of which the mother of Pupil B had a clear recollection was one sent by Mr Greene to Pupil B which said, “Hi [Pupil B] – thanks for yesterday. But don’t go boasting about it at school”. To the mother of Pupil B, this suggested to her that Mr Greene was being secretive and this caused her concern. e. Proposed a “sleep over”; Pupil B mentioned to his mother on a number of occasions that Mr Greene was intending to organise a sponsored sleep over at the school, utilising some empty rooms at the top of one of the school buildings. He mentioned the use of sleeping bags and Pupil B was very excited at the prospect. However, this did not materialise. 13 f. Had wrestling sessions with pupils. As in the case of every other allegation and particular, this was denied by Mr Greene. However, the mothers of both Pupils B and D stated that such wrestling sessions took place regularly and that Mr Greene was an active participant. The mother of Pupil B stated, and the panel found, that Pupil B had informed her that Mr Greene would take him and one other pupil to a room to which pupils were not permitted to enter and would then “playfight” with them. Mr Greene would show them some wrestling moves and he would personally take part in the playfighting. As the mother of Pupil B said, “Mr Greene was definitely a participant as opposed to a bystander”. The mother of Pupil B said that this was just an interest and not part of the curriculum. This was corroborated by the mother of Pupil D who said that, when at her home, Mr Greene would wrestle with Pupil D and on occasion this would also include Pupil D’s younger brother. This often took place in front of the mother of Pupil D but also at other times as well. Taking particulars a. to f. together, the panel found that Mr Greene had developed inappropriate relationships and displayed inappropriate behaviour with pupils whilst working as a teacher at a school in the Midlands between 2000-2001. The panel also considered it relevant that the mothers of Pupils B and D had reached the conclusion, as time progressed, that the behaviour of Mr Greene towards their child was entirely inappropriate. It was right to say that, at the outset, both mothers talked of the positive influence Mr Greene appeared to have in respect of their children. He was motivational and also, so far as the mother of Pupil D was concerned, had been of assistance with regard to pupil D’s behaviour in that, in his previous two years, he had been, “…going off track”. Mr Greene had brought him, “…right back”. The mother of Pupil B said that it was very stressful as her son was clearly influenced by Mr Greene and she did not want to upset her son in any way but, as time progressed, the behaviour of Mr Greene made her feel more and more uncomfortable. Furthermore, there was an understandable reluctance to come to the school and express their concerns as it was a small community and also they were conscious of the potential consequences for Mr Greene’s career. In the end, however, they found that they had no alternative but to raise their concerns with the school. 3. And in doing so in relation to allegations 1 and/or 2 your behaviour was sexually motivated. The panel considered very carefully whether the facts as found in respect of allegations 1 and 2 supported the conclusion that Mr Greene’s behaviour was sexually motivated. The panel had also taken account of the legal advice it had received. 14 In respect of allegation 1, the panel concluded that, in the light of its findings, and taking account of the nature of the allegation which had been found proved, it was inevitable that the panel would find Mr Greene’s behaviour to have been sexually motivated. As for allegation 2, the panel considered whether, on taking an overall view of its findings of fact in respect of all the particulars, it was appropriate to draw the inference that Mr Greene’s behaviour was sexually motivated. In addition, it was also appropriate to include consideration of any other evidence regarding Mr Greene’s character. This would include evidence of good character which, if present, may cast doubt on whether it was appropriate to make an adverse finding. However, no evidence as to his good character had been provided by Mr Greene. By contrast, the panel had found that, prior to the incidents giving rise to allegation 2, Mr Greene had sexually assaulted a child over a period of years. The panel was also struck by certain similarities in the behaviour of Mr Greene in relation to allegations 1 and 2. He developed friendships with not only the pupil but also his family. He endeavoured to integrate himself into the pupil’s family, spending time at their home, taking part in activities together. This reflected his behaviour towards Individual A and his family. Taking an overall view of its findings, the nature of the particulars found proven, and the findings in relation to allegation 1, the panel concluded on the balance of probabilities that it was proper and appropriate to infer that, in respect of allegation 2, Mr Greene’s behaviour was sexually motivated. Consequently, in respect of both allegations 1 and 2, the panel found allegation 3 proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute The panel was satisfied that, in respect of the allegations found proved, Mr Greene was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute. His behaviour was of a serious nature, falling significantly short of the standard expected of a teacher. The findings that Mr Greene had sexually assaulted a child and had also sought to develop relationships with pupils which were sexually motivated was extremely serious. In doing so, he had failed: a. To demonstrate consistently high standards of personal and professional conduct: b. To treat pupils with dignity and to build a relationship rooted in mutual respect; c. To observe proper boundaries appropriate to his position as a teacher; d. To have regard for the need to safeguard the well-being of impressionable children, including pupils; 15 e. To act as a role model, taking account of the uniquely influential position a teacher can hold in pupils’ lives. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State The panel was satisfied that Mr Greene’s behaviour was incompatible with being a teacher for the following reasons:  These were serious departures from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards as outlined above;  The behaviour amounted to sexual misconduct and had had a significant adverse impact on the life of Individual A. It had also put at risk the welfare of pupils;  His conduct amounted to an abuse of his position of trust, whether as an athletics coach or as a teacher. Indeed, Mr Greene had exploited his position of trust in a wholly unacceptable and damaging manner;  The actions of Mr Greene were deliberate and there was no suggestion that he had been acting under duress;  The behaviour did not relate to an isolated incident but had continued over a number of years;  Mr Greene had denied any wrongdoing and had denied the allegations before the panel;  Mr Greene had shown no insight nor had he shown any remorse;  The pattern of conduct demonstrated a deep-seated attitude that leads to harmful behaviour. There was no material which amounted to mitigation before the panel. Mr Greene had chosen not to attend to provide his account and to mitigate on his own behalf nor had he provided any character references or testimonials. The panel concluded that, if allowed to continue as a teacher, the risk of repetition of the sort of behaviour found proved was high. The panel reached this conclusion in the absence of any evidence to reassure it that there was no such risk or that such a risk was negligible. The panel was satisfied that a prohibition order was necessary in order to: protect pupils; maintain public confidence in the profession and to declare and uphold proper standards of conduct. The panel felt that this was proportionate, having weighed the interests of the public against those of Mr Greene. This was the panel’s recommendation. 16 The panel further considered whether to recommend that Mr Greene should be able to apply for the prohibition order to be set aside after a specified period or whether there should be no such provision. Again, in the light of its findings, the seriousness of the allegations found proved and the absence of any evidence which may have persuaded the panel to take a different course, the panel recommended that Mr Greene should be denied the right to apply for a review of the prohibition order. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have carefully considered the findings and recommendations of the panel in this case. The panel has found all the allegations proven and judged that the facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The facts in this case relate to Mr Greene sexually assaulting a person under the age of 16 together with the development of inappropriate relationships and behaviours with pupils whilst a teacher. The panel has found Mr Greene’s behaviour to be sexually motivated. These are serious incidents and the panel has identified a range of public interest considerations to be relevant including the protection of pupils, maintenance of confidence in the profession and upholding proper standards of conduct. Mr Greene has not attended the proceedings to provide his account and to mitigate on his own behalf nor has he provided any character references or testimonials. There is no evidence of Mr Greene showing any insight or remorse. The panel has recommended that a prohibition order without the opportunity to apply to have it set aside is an appropriate and proportionate sanction and I agree with that recommendation. This means that Mr Richard Greene is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Richard Greene shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. 17 Mr Richard Greene has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Paul Heathcote Date: 21 August 2015 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.