Mr Richard Pate

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 Pate

Teacher reference number: 0686440

Teacher's date of birth: 03 April 1982

Location teacher worked: Lancashire, North west England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 04 to 07 July 2022

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 Pate, formerly employed in Lancashire, North west England.

Mr Richard Pate: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 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 Richard Pate Teacher ref number: 0686440 Teacher date of birth: 3 April 1982 TRA reference: 19550 Date of determination: 7July 2022 Former employer: St Augustine’s Roman Catholic School Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 4 to 7 July 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Richard Pate. The panel members were Mrs Julie Beck (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist) Mr John Martin (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Natalie Kent of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Pate was 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 21 July 2021. It was alleged that Mr Pate was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst a teacher at St Augustine’s Roman Catholic School (‘the School’): 1. Between around 2017 and July 2018, he failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position in that he: a) provided 1:1 exam tuition to Pupil A; b) commented on Pupil A’s physical appearance; c) told Pupil A she had a “gorgeous smile” or words to that effect; d) touched Pupil A’s arm; e) hugged Pupil A; f) gave Pupil A a book with a personalized message; g) gave Pupil A a story about an intern and a boss who had a relationship; h) referred to himself as the ‘boss’ in the story at (g) above and referred to Pupil A as the ‘intern’ or words to that effect; and i) told Pupil A she looked “stunning” or words to that effect. 2. His conduct at any or all of 1(a) to 1(i) above was sexually motivated. 3. Between around September 2018 and June 2019 he: a) sent one or more letters to Pupil A; b) sent text messages to Pupil A; c) sent emails to Pupil A from his work and / or his personal email address; d) sent a card to Pupil A with the caption “I literally can’t keep my hands off you” or words to that effect; e) met with Pupil A on one or more occasions; f) went to the cinema with Pupil A; 5 g) went for one or more walks with Pupil A; h) engaged in a ‘Panic Room’ activity with Pupil A; i) kissed Pupil A; and j) engaged in sexual touching with Pupil A. 4. His conduct at any or all of 3(a) to 3(j) above was sexually motivated. 5. On or about 14 December 2018, he was absent from School and the reason given by him and / or recorded by the School was sickness, when in fact the reason for his absence was to meet Pupil A. 6. On or about 23 April 2019, he was absent from School and the reason given by him and / or recorded by the School was that his child was unwell, when in fact the reason for his absence was to meet Pupil A. 7. His conduct at 5 and/ or 6 above was dishonest. Mr Pate admitted the facts of allegations 1(b), 1(c), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(i), 3(a), 3(b), 3(c), 3(d), 3(e), 3(f), 3(g), 3(h), 3(i), 3(j), 5, 6 and 7, as set out in the response to the notice of proceedings signed by Mr Pate on 11 March 2021. Mr Pate denied the facts of allegations 1(a), 1(d), 1(h), 2 and 4. Mr Pate further admitted that the facts of those admitted allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 23 • Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 24 to 38 6 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 39 to 175 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 176 to 182 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A [redacted] • Witness B [redacted] • Witness C [redacted] 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 Pate commenced his role as a teacher of English at the School on 1 September 2008. Mr Pate taught Pupil A during Key Stage 4 and also provided extra tuition to Pupil A during lunchtimes between May 2017 and June 2017. Mr Pate resumed one to one tuition with Pupil A during lunchtimes and after school between April 2018 and June 2018. In June 2018, Mr Pate gave Pupil A a story written by him. On 20 June 2018, Pupil A attended her school prom, at which Mr Pate was present. On 29 June 2018, Pupil A left the School. On 7 November 2018, there was a celebration evening at the School, following which Pupil A initiated email correspondence with Mr Pate. Between December 2018 and June 2019, Mr Pate and Pupil A met on more than 10 occasions during this period. On 14 December 2018, Mr Pate was absent from school to meet Pupil A; his reason given for his absence was sickness. 7 On 23 April 2019, Mr Pate was absent from school to meet Pupil A; his reason given for this absence was that his child was unwell. On 7 June 2019, Pupil A accidently sent a text message intended for Mr Pate to her father. On 10 June 2019, Pupil A’s father contacted the School to inform them of the relationship between Mr Pate and Pupil A. On the same day Mr Pate voluntarily made a verbal disclosure regarding a relationship which he had with Pupil A to Witness C. Mr Pate was later suspended pending a formal investigation into allegations by the School. The School also referred the matter to the LADO. On 19 June 2019, Pupil A provided a statement for the School’s investigation. On 17 July 2019, the School held a disciplinary investigation meeting with Mr Pate. On 2 October 2019, the National Education Union (‘NEU’) submitted a document on behalf of Mr Pate. A meeting was held by the disciplinary and dismissal committee. The outcome of the meeting was sent by letter to Mr Pate on 4 October 2019. The matter was referred to the DBS on 8 November 2019. The matter was closed by the LADO, on 12 November 2019, as a substantiated allegation, following the disciplinary hearing. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between around 2017 and July 2018, you failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position in that you: a) provided 1:1 exam tuition to Pupil A; b) commented on Pupil A’s physical appearance; c) told Pupil A she had a “gorgeous smile” or words to that effect; d) touched Pupil A’s arm; e) hugged Pupil A; f) gave Pupil A a book with a personalized message; 8 g) gave Pupil A a story about an intern and a boss who had a relationship; h) referred to yourself as the ‘boss’ in the story at (g) above and referred to Pupil A as the ‘intern’ or words to that effect; and i) told Pupil A she looked “stunning” or words to that effect. The panel noted that within the response to the notice of proceedings, Mr Pate admitted the facts of allegations 1(b), 1(c), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), and 1(i). Nonetheless, the panel made a determination based on the facts and the evidence available to it. The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Pate and considered his statement as prepared with the assistance of the NEU for the School’s disciplinary investigation in or around September 2019 and also his letter to the TRA, dated 28 December 2020. The panel was also provided with the statement of Pupil A dated 19 June 2019 which was recorded by Witness A. Whilst the panel was aware that Pupil A’s statement was to be treated as hearsay evidence due to Pupil A not appearing to give evidence before the panel, the panel was mindful that Mr Pate had, on several occasions, stated that he did not disagree with the contents. The contents of Pupil A’s statement, which was provided shortly after the events had come to light, was very similar to that which had been verbally disclosed by Mr Pate to Witness C. On this basis the panel was satisfied that it was fair to admit Pupil A’s statement and made a determination of the weight placed upon it in accordance with the unchallenged nature of the statement and the panel’s belief that Pupil A had no reason to be dishonest. In addition, the panel were mindful that Mr Pate accepted that Pupil A had no reason to make accusations against Mr Pate that were not true. Mr Pate also submitted as part of the disciplinary proceedings, 3-character reference statements which the panel were provided with within the bundle. The panel was mindful that these could be taken into account in respect of Mr Pate’s credibility. Mr Pate submitted that he provided 1:1 tuition, as well as group tuition, to several pupils; Pupil A was included in this. Mr Pate submitted that 1:1 tuition was, in his experience, a “legitimate and effective tool for delivering pupil p