Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

1082529

Teacher's date of birth:

25 September 1988

Location teacher worked:

Bexleyheath, London

Date of professional conduct panel:

12 to 13 June 2019

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 Robert Donnelly, formerly employed in Bexleyheath, London.

The proceedings were held at 5 Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 12 June 2019.

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 Robert Anthony Donnelly: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2019 2 Contents Contents 2 A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 9 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 16 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Robert Anthony Donnelly Teacher ref number: 1082529 Teacher date of birth: 25 September 1988 TRA reference: 17198 Date of determination: 13 June 2019 Former employer: St Columba’s Catholic Boys School A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 to 13 June 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Robert Anthony Donnelly. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Shamaila Quershi (lay panellist) and Dr Melvyn Kershaw (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Charlotte Wood of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Lisa Wright of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Donnelly was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 17 April 2019. It was alleged that Mr Donnelly was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst he was employed as Head of PE at St Columba’s Catholic Boys School he: 1. Failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Pupil A including by: a. Exchanging personal contact information with him; b. Exchanging messages with Pupil A, including one or more messages: i. Which were sent late at night; ii. In which he asked him what kind of underwear he wears. 2. Failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries in relation to Pupil B, including by: a. Exchanging personal contact information with him; b. Exchanging messages with Pupil B, including one or more messages: i. Which were sent late at night; ii. In which he asked him what kind of underwear he wears; iii. In which he stated that he was lying in bed and that he “should put some clothes on”, implying that he was naked; iv. In which you describe how Pupil B should arrange his genitalia within his underwear’. 3. His conduct, as may be found proven at 1 and/or 2 above was; a. Flirtatious; b. Conduct of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated. Mr Donnelly admitted allegations 1 and 2 (save for 2 (b) iv) as set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts and that this behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. However, Mr Donnelly denied that the conduct was flirtatious or conduct of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated (allegation 3). 5 C. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Donnelly The presenting officer applied to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Donnelly. The panel heard that the Notice of Proceedings was sent to Mr Donnelly on 17 April 2019 and confirmation of receipt was received on the same day, from Mr Donnelly’s representative, who was authorised to accept service on his behalf. The panel noted that Mr Donnelly’s representative, by proxy, had completed and returned the Notice of Proceedings dated 13 May 2019 together with a copy of Mr Donnelly’s signed witness statement and Statement of Agreed Facts, in advance of the hearing, copies of which were contained in the hearing bundle. In addition the panel was presented with correspondence from Mr Donnelly’s representative which stated that Mr Donnelly had waivered his right to attend the hearing, that he was aware of his right to be present but decided not to do so. The email concerning this was sent by the teacher’s representative on 23 May 2019. Subsequently on 29 May 2019, Mr Donnelly’s representative confirmed that the hearing bundle was not contested. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the panel announced the decision as follows. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”). Furthermore the panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (“the Procedures”). The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion was severely constrained. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of continuing with the hearing. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in the teacher’s attendance at the hearing and it was in the interests of justice and appropriate to proceed in his absence. Taking account of the public interest in proceedings taking place within a reasonable time, the panel decided to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed in the absence of the teacher. 6 Application to admit documents The presenting officer applied to admit documents including correspondence to and from Mr Donnelly and his representative in addition to correspondence from the St Columba’s Catholic Boys School (“the school”) in respect of its application, requesting anonymity during these proceedings. A further application was made by the presenting officer to admit email correspondence between Mr Donnelly’s representative and the presenting officer dated 12 and 13 June 2019 with regards to the proposed amendment to allegation 2 (b). The documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of the Procedures, and as such the panel was required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures, at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account representations from the presenting officer with regards to the admission of documents. The panel exercised caution when considering whether to allow the documents to be admitted given that it had determined to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel determined that both of these factors applied. The panel confirmed that it allowed those documents to be included in the bundle and paginated at 218 to 231. Application for anonymity of a school On behalf of the school, the presenting officer made an application for the name of the school not to be disclosed during the hearing. The panel considered the representations made by the school in an email dated 11 June 2019 together with a letter from Ofsted dated 7 February 2019. Paragraph 4.60 of the Procedures gives discretion to the panel, if it considers it to be in the interests of justice, to anonymise the name and identity of a school during a hearing or at all. In considering whether to grant anonymity, the panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and took account of case law that states: “It is necessary because the public nature of proceedings deters inappropriate behaviour on the part of the court. It also maintains the public’s confidence in the administration of justice. It enables the public to know that justice is being administered impartially. It can result in evidence becoming available which would not become available if the proceedings were conducted behind closed doors or with one or more of the parties’ or witnesses’ identity concealed. It makes uninformed and inaccurate comment about the proceedings less likely”. 7 The panel had regard to whether the request for anonymity ran contrary to the public interest and the principle that limited interference with the public nature of the proceedings is preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel determined that, in the circumstances of this case, it was not appropriate to anonymise the name of the school. In doing so, the panel commented that the school’s concerns in respect of the impact of this hearing on its reputation could be alleviated since the allegations did not arise in a school setting. Application to amend allegation An application was made by the presenting officer to amend the Notice of Proceedings by amending allegation 2 (b) to include an additional allegation at (iv),‘in which you describe how Pupil B should arrange his genitalia within his underwear’. The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proven. Before making an amendment, the panel is required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher, and the parties have been afforded that opportunity. The teacher’s representative opposed the application on the ground that to add the proposed allegation at this stage, during the hearing and in the knowledge that Mr Donnelly is not present o