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:

0210356

Teacher's date of birth:

26 March 1976

Location teacher worked:

Kent, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

27 to 28 February 2017

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 Harrington, formerly employed in Kent, South East England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 27 to 28 February 2017.

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 Harrington: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2017 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 D. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 E. Decision and reasons 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 Harrington Teacher ref number: 0210356 Teacher date of birth: 26 March 1976 NCTL case reference: 15183 Date of determination: 27 February 2017 Former employer: St John Fisher Catholic School A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 27 February at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Robert Harrington. The panel members were Mr Adam Nichols (lay panellist - chair), Mrs Mary Speakman (teacher panellist) and Ms Margaret Windsor (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Laura Ellis of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Ms Louisa Atkins of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Harrington was not present and was not represented at the hearing. 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 8 November 2016. It was alleged that Mr Robert Harrington was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher: 1. He was in possession of one or more indecent images of a child/children on or around 8 March 2016; 2. His behaviour as referred to at 1 above constituted a criminal offence pursuant to section 160 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, for which he accepted a caution on 20 May 2016. C. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence: The panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel is satisfied that NCTL has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel is also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complies with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under Paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understands that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel has noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. Mr Harrington previously responded to the Notice of Proceedings to state that he did not intend to attend the hearing, and the panel understands that he has subsequently confirmed this in email correspondence to the National College. The panel therefore considers that the teacher has waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. 5 The panel has had rega rd to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favou r of the hearing taking place. Mr Harrington has also not requested an adjournment, and t here is no indication that an adjournment might result in him attending the hearing. He has also indicated that he does not wish to be legally represented at the hearing. The panel has had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to Mr Harrington in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel has the benefit of written representations made by Mr Harrington (including a witness statement from him) and is able to ascertain the lines of defence. This includes Mr Harrington’s evidence addressing mitigation and the panel is able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel has not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence provided to it and should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, th e panel may take such gaps into consideration in considering whether the hearing should be adjourned for such documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel is also able to exer cise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard Mr Harrington’s account from him in person. The panel also notes that all of the evidence in this case is documentary, as there are no witnesses. The panel has had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for Mr Harrington and has accepted that fairness to Mr Harrington is of prime importance. However, it considers that in light of Mr Harrington’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in thi s hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Admission of additional documents: The panel considered an application by Ms Atkin to admit additional documents to the hearing bundle, namely a case summary from the police regarding Mr Harrington’s caution dated 8 April 2016. Ms Atkin explained that these documents were not received from the police until 15 February 2017, when they were immediately sent to Mr Harrington’s legal representative by the National Col lege. Mr Harrington’s representative confirmed that Mr Harrington has no objections to the inclusion of this document, by email dated 17 February 2017. The panel considers that this document is relevant to the proceedings, and as Mr Harrington has confirme d (via his legal representative) that he is content for it to be admitted, the panel grants this application to admit it to the bundle under its discretion to do so pursuant to paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures. The documents are added as pages 74 to 79 of the hearing bundle. 6 Application for the hearing to be held in private: The panel has considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public f rom all or part of the hearing. This is due to the fact that although Mr Harrington is not present at the hearing, on his Response to the Notice of Proceedings form dated 8 November 2016, he has indicated that the hearing (or part of it) should not be held in public, although he has not given any reasons for this. The panel has determined not to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3) (b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel has taken into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. The panel has noted that there are concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health being placed in the public domain. The panel has balanced this against the competing reasons for which a public hearing is required. The panel notes that any departure from the general rule has to be no greater than the extent reasonably necessary and that interf erence for a limited period of the hearing is preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel has therefore, considered whether there are any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to Mr Harrington’s health, and considers that to the extent it becomes necessary during the course of the hearing to discuss such matters, the panel can consider at that stage whether to exclude the public from that portion of the hearing only. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 2 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 4 -10 Section 3: NCTL witness statements N/A Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 13 - 70 7 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 72 - 73 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Section 6: Police Case Summary and email from Mr Harrington’s legal representative confirming he is content for this to be added to the bundle – pages 74 - 79 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses There were no witnesses who gave verbal evidence at the hearing. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Harrington was employed at St. John Fisher Catholic School (the “School”) from 1 July 2014 to 31 May 2016 as an English teacher and subsequent