Mr Robert Johnson

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 Johnson

Teacher reference number: 07/48950

Teacher's date of birth: 11 February 1982

Location teacher worked: County Durham, north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 28 September 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 Robert Johnson, formerly employed in County Durham, north east 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 Johnson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2022 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 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 9 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Robert Johnson Teacher ref number: 07/48950 Teacher date of birth: 11 February 1982 TRA reference: 19671 Date of determination: 28 September 2022 Former employer: St John’s Catholic School and Sixth Form College, County Durham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 28 September 2022, remotely via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Johnson. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Sonia Fraser (teacher panellist) and Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Phil Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP 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 Johnson that the allegation(s) be considered without a hearing. Mr Johnson provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ms Matilda Heselton, the teacher Mr Johnson, or his representative. 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(s) set out in the notice of meeting dated 28 July 2022. It was alleged that Mr Johnson was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. He was convicted at the Durham Crown Court in October 2020 for two counts of distributing indecent photographs of children between 16 March 2018 and 16 August 2018, contrary to Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, for which he was sentenced to 27 months imprisonment (including an additional 12 months imprisonment to be served concurrently), added to the sex offenders notice for 10 years, issued with a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £170. The teacher admitted the facts as alleged, and admitted that this amounted to 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: Chronology – page 2 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 4 to 9b Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 11 to 16 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 18 to 138 Section 5: Teacher Documents – pages 140 to 141 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 Johnson on 14 January 2022. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Johnson for the allegation(s) 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. Taking note of written representations made by the presenting officer on behalf of the TRA in support of disposing of the case without a hearing, the panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Johnson was employed as a History Teacher and the Head of Humanities at the School from 1 January 2015. On 14 March 2019, Mr Johnson was arrested and interviewed by the police. A LADO meeting was held on 18 March, and Mr Johnson was suspended from his role at the School on 20 March. On 3 July 2019, Mr Johnson was again interviewed by the police. He appeared at Newton Aycliffe Magistrates’ Court on 20 February 2020, and pleaded not guilty at a pre- trial hearing at Durham Crown Court on 23 March. On 22 October 2020, following a jury trial, Mr Johnson was convicted at Durham Crown Court of two counts of distributing indecent photographs of children. Mr Johnson was sentenced on 23 October 2020 and dismissed from the School the same day, on the grounds of frustration of contract. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You were convicted at the Durham Crown Court in October 2020 for two counts of distributing indecent photographs of children between 16 March 2018 and 16 August 2018, contrary to Section 1 of the Protection of Children Act 1978, for which you were sentenced to 27 months imprisonment (including an additional 12 months imprisonment to be served concurrently), added to the sex offenders 6 notice for 10 years, issued with a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £170. This allegation was admitted and supported by the evidence presented to the panel, in particular the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Johnson, as well as: a PNC print produced on 21 December 2020 noting the convictions; and a certificate of conviction dated 4 June 2021 recording convictions at Durham Crown Court on 22 October 2022, which the panel accepted as proof of the commission of the offences concerned. There was no evidence put before the panel which suggested that there was not a conviction as alleged. The allegation was therefore found proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. 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 Johnson in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Johnson 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 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. The panel noted that the Mr Johnson’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting due to the nature of his conviction. Similarly, the panel also noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Johnson’s behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Johnson’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. Further, this was a case involving offences of any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or 7 pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one off incidents, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel also noted that Mr Johnson had admitted in the Statement of Agreed Facts that the facts of the allegations against him amounted to a conviction, at any time, of a relevant offence. There was no evidence put before the panel relating to Mr Johnson’s teaching proficiency other than some brief positive comments made by a former colleague and found in the transcript of the judge’s summing up at the Crown Court trial in October 2020. 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 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 at page 14 of the Advice and, having done so, found all of them to be relevant in this case, namely the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, an