Mr Robert Hanson

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

Teacher's name: Mr Robert Hanson

Teacher reference number: 1258399

Teacher's date of birth: 12 February 1991

Location teacher worked: Bristol, south west of England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 August 2021

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 Hanson, formerly employed in Bristol, south west of England.

Mr Robert Hanson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 100 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Teacher ref number: Mr Robert Hanson 1258399 T eacher date of birth: 27 February 1991 TRA reference: 19310 Date of determination: 25 August 2021 Former employer: W est Town Lane Academy, Bristol Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 August 2021 by MS Teams to consider the case of Mr Robert Hanson. The panel members were Dr Steven Berryman (teacher panellist – chair), Mr Ian Carter (former teacher panellist) and Ms Oluremi Alabi (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Hanson that the allegation(s) be considered without a hearing. Mr Hanson provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Hanson or any representative instructed on his behalf. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 9 August 2021. It was alleged that Mr Hanson was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: On or around 17 April 2020 he was convicted of the offence of grooming and having sexual intercourse with [REDACTED] for which he received a 4 year prison sentence, a 15 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and ordered to register as a sex offender indefinitely. Mr Hanson has admitted the facts alleged. Mr Hanson further accepts that the allegations amount to a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of Referral & Response – pages 2 to 3 • Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 7 to 11 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 13 to 68 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 70 to 71 The panel also received a copy of the Notice of Meeting. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Hanson on 7 May 2021. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Hanson for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. The panel proceeded to carefully consider the case, having read all the documents, and reached a decision. On 19 April 2019, Mr Hanson attended a gaming convention at the Birmingham NEC arena. At that convention, Mr Hanson accepts that he was involved in a game of "guessing the ages" of the participants. During the game, Mr Hanson learned that one of the children, referred to as Pupil A was [REDACTED]. Mr Hanson admits that following the convention, he communicated with Pupil A via text message and social media. Mr Hanson admits that during those conversations he and Pupil A discussed being together and having sexual intercourse. Mr Hanson admits that he purchased a train ticket for Pupil A allowing [REDACTED]to travel to Bristol where Mr Hanson lived. He admits to meeting Pupil A in Bristol on 25 May 2019. He admits that on 25 May 2019, he and Pupil A had sexual intercourse. On 3 June 2019, Mr Hanson was arrested on suspicion of sexual activity with a [REDACTED]. Mr Hanson was subsequently charged with two offences contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, namely: 1. Meeting a [REDACTED]under 16 years of age following grooming; 2. Engaging in penetrative sexual activity with [REDACTED], contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003, s.9 and s.13. On 24 March 2020, Mr Hanson pleaded guilty to the two offences. Mr Hanson was sentenced on 17 April 2020. Mr Hanson had been employed as a teacher at the relevant time of the offence. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: On or around 17 April 2020 you were convicted of the offence of grooming and having sexual intercourse with [REDACTED] for which you received a 4 year prison sentence, a 15 year Sexual Harm Prevention Order and ordered to register as a sex offender indefinitely. The panel was provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction dated 2 February 2021 which confirmed Mr Hanson's conviction in respect of the above offences. The allegation was admitted and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle, the allegation was therefore, found proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence For conviction cases Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether Mr Hanson's conviction was for a relevant offence which he also admitted. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as "the Advice". The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Hanson in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Hanson was in breach of the following standards:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. 7 The panel took into account the fact that Mr Hanson's actions were relevant to teaching and working with children. Although the victim was not a pupil at the school Mr Hanson taught at, the victim was [REDACTED] child. The panel determined that there were no mitigating factors identified in this case. The panel also determined that Mr Hanson had shown neither insight nor remorse for his actions and the effect they had on the victim. The panel took into account how the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Hanson's behaviour in committing the offence, was highly likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession give the influence that teachers may have on pupils and others in the community. The panel was not provided with any evidence of Mr Hanson's proficiency as a qualified teacher. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Hanson's ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely the protection of pupils/the protection of other members of the public/the maintenance of public confidence in the profession/declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Hanson, which involved grooming and having sexual intercourse with a child, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the serious findings of inappropriate relationships with children. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Hanson were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. 8 The panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Hanson was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Notwith