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: 0043957

Teacher's date of birth: 2 February 1980

Location teacher worked: Newcastle upon Tyne, north east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 January 2023

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 Newcastle upon Tyne, 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 January 2023 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 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Robert Johnson Teacher ref number: 0043957 Teacher date of birth: 2 February 1980 TRA reference: 19429 Date of determination: 25 January 2023 Former employer: Dame Allan's Primary School, Newcastle upon Tyne Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 January 2023, via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Robert Johnson. The panel members were Mr Neil Hillman (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Kathleen O'Hare (former teacher panellist) and Ms Penny Griffith (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP. 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 be considered without a hearing. Mr Johnson 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, Ms Amalea Bourne or Mr Johnson. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 16 January 2023. It was alleged that Mr Robert Johnson was had been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 10 November 2021, he was convicted at North Northumbria Magistrates Court of five counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo - photographs of children between the following dates: a. 01/09/2018 – 02/06/2020; b. 01/10/2009 – 02/06/2020. The Above convictions were contrary to S1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. By a Statement of Agreed Facts, signed by Mr Johnson on 4 December 2022, he admitted the facts of the conviction and that this was a conviction for 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 5 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and Notice of meeting – pages 7 to 19b Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations: page 21 to 29 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 31 to 142 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 144 to 147 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 4 December 2022. 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 Johnson 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. Mr Johnson had been employed at D ame Allan's Primary School since June 2010 as a teacher. On 2 June 2020, Mr Johnson attended a voluntary interview at Northumbria Police Station in respect of indecent images of children being on his computer. Mr Johnson was subsequently charged by the police and, on 10 November 2021, pleaded guilty at North Northumbria Magistrates' Court, to five counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children. Mr Johnson was subsequently sentenced by Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court, and received a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment (suspended for 24 months), a rehabilitation activity requirement of 40 days and an unpaid work requirement of 200 hours. He was also given a S exual Harm Prevention Order, and requirement to register with police, for 10 years. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 10 November 2021, you were convicted at North Northumbria Magistrates Court of five counts of making indecent photograph or pseudo- photographs of children between the following dates: a. 01/09/2018 – 02/06/2020; b. 01/10/2009 – 02/06/2020. The Above convictions were contrary to S1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. 6 The panel had sight of the Certificate of Conviction dated 21 January 2021 [sic], which confirmed Mr Johnson's conviction, and also considered the transcript of the sentencing remarks from the hearing on 8 December 2021. In addition, the panel had sight of the Police Nation al Computer ('PNC') printout, which provided further confirmation of the time-frames referenced in the allegation., In the light of the above documentation, and that t he allegation was admitted and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle, the panel found the facts of the allegation proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether Mr Johnson's conviction was for a relevant criminal 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 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 proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities From the sentencing remarks, some of the images made by Mr Johnson were of the most serious category, and his offending behaviour had taken place for over a decade. The severe nature of the offences was reflected by his sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), and that he had been given a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years. 7 This was a case involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or 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. Although the panel found that the evidence of Mr Johnson's teaching profici ency to be of note, the panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Johnson's ongoing suitability to teach. The panel also took account of how the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Johnson's behaviour, in committing the offence, would certainly affect public confidence in the teaching profession given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. 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 Mr Johnson's 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 a 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 Johnson which involved determining that he had been convicted of a relevant offence, and that his behaviour had taken place on 8 numerous occasions over a ten- year period, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Johnson was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. 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 agains