Mr Robert Hanna

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 Robert Hanna

Teacher reference number: 0533577

Teacher's date of birth: 11 January 1978

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 November 2024

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 Hanna 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 Robert Hanna: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 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 Robert Hanna Teacher ref number: 0533577 Teacher date of birth: 11 January 1978 TRA reference: 19662 Date of determination: 27 November 2024 Former employer: St Saviour’s and St Olave’s C of E Secondary School Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 27 November 2024 via MS Teams to consider the case of Mr Robert Hanna. The panel members were Mr Ian McKim (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bev Williams (teacher panellist) and Ms Katie Dent (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Natalia Constantine of counsel, instructed by Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Hanna was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 2 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Hanna was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 23 November 2021 he was convicted of causing/inciting sexual activity with a female 13-17 (offender over 18 or over abuse of position of trust) on 01/08/18 – 01/4/19 contrary to Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.17 (1) (e) (i) 2. On 23 November 2021 he was convicted of 5 counts of sexual activity with a female 13- 17 offender does not believe victim is over 18 (abuse of position of trust) on 01/08/18- 01/04/19 contrary to Sexual Offences Act 2003. S.16 (1) (e) (i) 3. On 13 December 2021 he was convicted of 4 counts of failing to comply on 01/04/19 with conditions 4 (a) and (b) subject to which a shotgun certificate was held by him. Contrary to Section 2(2) of and Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968. 4. On 13 December 2021 he was were convicted of failing to comply on 01/04/19 with condition 4 (a) and (b) subject to which a firearm certificate was held by him. Contrary to Section 1(2) of and Schedule 6 to the Firearms Act 1968. Mr Hanna did not make any admissions. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer that the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Hanna. She relied on the evidence set out in the PIA bundle, which included evidence that: • The notice of hearing was sent to Mr Hanna’s address in [REDACTED] on 2 September 2024 but returned undelivered. • Prior to that, Mr Hanna had emailed the TRA on 12 February 2024 and said he wished to receive all correspondence in writing not via email. He did not provide any other postal address. • On 12 July 2024, a letter from Kingsley Napley solicitors dated 11 July 2024 and sent to Mr Hanna at an address in [REDACTED] was signed for by “LL” before being returned. 5 • On 20 July 2024, an unidentified item was delivered and signed for by “Hanna” • At various times, Kingsley Napley solicitors and the TRA attempted to email Mr Hanna at the address he had emailed from in February 2024 but he did not reply. • Kingsley Napley solicitors instructed tracing agents, who identified a potential address in [REDACTED], but post sent to this address was returned marked “not known”. • On 31 October 2024, a TRA caseworker spoke to Mr Hanna on the telephone and told him about the hearing date. He said he had not received correspondence about it, and was told that the correspondence sent had been returned as undelivered. He repeated that he did not want to receive email correspondence and said he “did not see the point” in attending the hearing. He said he would seek advice. Since then, there has been no further contact from him. • On 11 November 2024, the TRA sent a further letter to Mr Hanna at his [REDACTED] address. It was signed for by “Robert” but then returned marked “not known here”. The panel was satisfied that the notice of hearing had been served in accordance with paragraph 5.23 of Teacher misconduct; Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession, May 2020 (the Procedures). It went on to consider whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in the absence of Mr Hanna, in accordance with paragraphs 5.45 – 5.47 of the Procedures. It had regard to the decisions of the House of Lords in R v Jones [2002] UKHL 5 and the Court of Appeal in GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162. The panel concluded that it would proceed in Mr Hanna’s absence. It considered that there was a significant public interest in bringing this matter to a conclusion, given that Mr Hanna was convicted three years ago and the events dated back to 2018-2019. It had regard to the nature and circumstances of his absence. The panel concluded that he was actually aware of the hearing from 31 October 2024 onwards, and that he had the means of attending and/or accessing the material to be relied on by the TRA. He had not sought an adjournment. The panel concluded he had voluntarily absented himself, and that an adjournment was unlikely to result in his attendance. The panel considered the extent of disadvantage he would be under by not being present. It noted that the allegations concerned convictions, and concluded this reduced the disadvantage, but by no means eliminated it. The panel was confident that it could and would mitigate the remaining disadvantage by having careful regard to the written information submitted by Mr Hanna to the TRA. Discontinuance of allegations 3 and 4 6 The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to discontinue allegations 3 and 4. These were put on the basis that Mr Hanna had been convicted, but this was technically incorrect as Mr Hanna had been conditionally discharged. The presenting officer submitted that there was no public interest in seeking to proceed with amended allegations relating to the conduct set out in allegations 3 and 4, as this would necessitate an adjournment to obtain further evidence, and given the seriousness of allegations 1 and 2, there was no public interest in this. She confirmed that discontinuance of the allegations would be final – the TRA would not seek to revive them in future. The panel noted that the Procedures did not cover this specific situation but concluded that it was appropriate for them to consider the application to discontinue. As a professional regulatory panel, the panel had a duty to ensure that the public interest was served adequately by the proper exploration of allegations. The panel concluded that in the circumstances of this case, the public interest would be satisfied by the discontinuance of allegations 3 and 4. There was no public interest in delaying the final consideration of allegations 1 and 2, which were extremely serious and directly relevant to Mr Hanna’s work as a teacher. Findings on allegations 3 and 4 would be unlikely to add anything to the seriousness of the case, and in those circumstance, there was no public interest in delaying matters to amend or seek further evidence on them. The panel also considered whether it should make a finding on allegations 3 and 4, and if there was insufficient evidence to prove them, find them not proved. It decided that this would not result in any substantial difference to allowing the application to discontinue. Accordingly, the panel agreed that allegations 3 and 4 should be discontinued. It noted that as a professional panel, it could and would disregard those matters entirely when making its decision on the remaining allegations. 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 4 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 17 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 18 to 99 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 100 to 144 The panel had also received an anonymised hearing list. 7 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • A 21-page bundle of documents entitled “PIA bundle” • An unredacted copy of the notice of hearing confirming the address it was sent to • Evidence that the notice of hearing was returned to the TRA undelivered The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Hanna was head of physics at St Saviour’s and St Olave’s C of E Secondary School (the School). In April 2019, Pupil A disclosed that they had been engaged in a sexual relationship with Mr Hanna. It had started in June 2018, when Pupil A was [REDACTED], shortly after they had completed their GCSEs. It continued for a time after they returned to the School to study for their A levels. For some of the time, Mr Hanna was [REDACTED]. Mr Hanna initially arranged a social meeting with Pupil A and some other pupils, then started messaging [REDACTED] via social media. There was an occasion when he kissed [REDACTED], and then they began having sexual intercourse. This took place on a number of occasions, including at his home and in hotels. [REDACTED]. Mr Hanna was arrested and charged with a number of criminal offences. He pleaded not guilt