Mr Robert Keith

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 Keith

Teacher reference number: 1085795

Teacher's date of birth: 17 August 1991

Location teacher worked: Dunstable, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: From 21 January 2025 to 23 January 2025

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 Keith, formerly employed in Dunstable, East of 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 Keith: Professional conduct panel hearing Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education Teacher: Mr Robert Keith Teacher ref number: 1085795 Teacher date of birth: 17 August 1991 TRA reference: 15812 Date of determination: 22 January 2025 Former employer: All Saints Academy, Dunstable Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 21 – 22 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing to consider the case of Mr Robert Keith. The panel members were Ms Olivia Kong (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Karen Graham (teacher panellist) and Mrs Beverly Montgomery (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Keith 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 proceedings 16 October 2024 . It was alleged that Mr Keith was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst he was employed as a teacher at All Saints Academy between September 2013 and November 2016: 1. He engaged in and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, by; a. Communicating with Pupil A via Facebook; b. Commenting to Pupil A; i. ‘If we had sex, what would you do?’ or words to that effect; ii. ‘We could start with a cheeky finger’ or words to that effect; iii. ‘Well, you could just open your legs’ or words to that effect; iv. ‘So, I just wanna rip it off with my teeth’ or words to that effect. c. Inviting Pupil A to his home accommodation; d. Allowing Pupil A inside his home accommodation; e. Discussing him and Pupil A having sex; f. Obtaining Pupil A’s personal number and/or providing his personal number to Pupil A; g. Arranging to meet with Pupil A and/or meeting with Pupil A outside of school premises; h. Inviting Pupil A inside his car; i. Touching Pupil A’s thigh; j. Touching Pupil A under her clothing; k. Touching Pupil A’s vagina and/or placing his fingers inside her vagina. 2. His conduct, as may be found proven at Allegation 1, was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. Mr Keith made no admissions of facts. 5 Mr Keith made no admission of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Keith. It was satisfied that the notice of proceedings had been sent to Mr Keith at least 8 weeks before the date of this hearing, as required by paragraph 4.11 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the Procedures) April 2018. Having decided that, the panel considered whether to exercise its discretion to proceed in Mr Keith’s absence. It noted that he was aware of the TRA’s proceedings and inferred from his response to the TRA in January 2024 that he did not intend to participate further. It considered that appropriate attempts had been made to ensure that Mr Keith was aware of the hearing and given the opportunity to attend, in particular, via the notice being posted to him at two different postal addresses and via email correspondence sent to an email address he provided to the TRA in January 2024. The panel noted that the allegations date back to 2016 and that Pupil A and another witness were in attendance to give evidence. Any further delay for no good reason would not be in their interests, or in the public interest. The panel concluded that there was no good reason to delay further, as it could be satisfied that an adjournment was unlikely to secure Mr Keith’s attendance. The panel decided that Mr Keith had voluntarily waived his right to attend, and in these circumstances, it decided to exercise its discretion to proceed in his absence. The panel also considered an application for Pupil A to be treated as a [REDACTED] and for her to have special measures, specifically, a witness supporter, should she require one. The panel was satisfied that Pupil A is a [REDACTED] under the Procedures, in that the allegation under consideration is sexual in nature, and she is the alleged victim. The panel agreed that if she required it, she should have support from a witness supporter, who could be present with her to provide moral support while she is giving evidence. The panel directed that the witness supporter should be visible at all times and should not influence Pupil A’s evidence in any way. The panel agreed to receive the name of the witness supporter in private session, to avoid identifying Pupil A. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: 6 Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 36 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements and exhibits – pages 38 to 60 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 62 to 168 Section 5: Teacher documents – none In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Supplementary bundle (relating to proceeding in absence) • 2 postal receipts for the notices of proceedings sent to Mr Keith 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. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence called by the presenting officer from • Pupil A (who decided to give evidence without a witness supporter) • [REDACTED], All Saints Academy Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Keith was employed as an English teacher at All Saints Academy (“the School”) from September 2013. In the academic year of 2013 to 2014, Pupil A was in Mr Keith’s [REDACTED] group. She and [REDACTED], Pupil B, developed a bond with Mr Keith during the academic year. They made plans to meet up after Pupil A and Pupil B completed their [REDACTED] exams. There were social media and electronic communications between them, and in-person meetings in the summer of 2014. In December 2015, Pupil A told her mum that something had happened between her and Mr Keith, and her mum reported it to the School. There was a police investigation, [REDACTED]. 7 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: Whilst you were employed as a teacher at All Saints Academy between September 2013 and November 2016: 1. You engaged in and/or developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A, by: a. Communicating with Pupil A via Facebook; Pupil A gave evidence to the panel about this, and the panel accepted her evidence. It was supported by screenshots of messages exchanged between Mr Keith and Pupils A and B in a Facebook Messenger group called “Convos with Keith”. In Mr Keith’s police interview, he admitted exchanging messages with Pupil A via Facebook. The panel was therefore satisfied that this allegation was proved. b. Commenting to Pupil A; i. ‘If we had sex, what would you do?’ or words to that effect; ii. ‘We could start with a cheeky finger’ or words to that effect; iii. ‘Well, you could just open your legs’ or words to that effect; iv. ‘So, I just wanna rip it off with my teeth’ or words to that effect. The hearing bundle contained screenshots of these messages. In her evidence to the panel, Pupil A confirmed that each of these messages was sent by Mr Keith to the Facebook Messenger group or directly to her. The panel accepted her evidence. In his police interview, Mr Keith accepted that there may have been some sexual comments in the group messages. The panel concluded that this allegation was proved. c. Inviting Pupil A to your home accommodation; In his police interview, Mr Keith accepted that he, Pupil A and Pupil B, made plans to watch TV together at his house. She described that at the end of July 2014, Mr Keith collected her and Pupil B from [REDACTED] car park and drove them to his house, where they spent the afternoon. The account she gave was detailed and consistent with her account in her police interview in 2016. The panel accepted her evidence and concluded that Mr Keith had invited her to his home accommodation. 8 d. Allowing Pupil A inside your home accommodation; The panel accepted Pupil A’s evidence about her visit to Mr Keith’s home accommodation in late July 2014 and found this proved. e. Discussing you and Pupil A having sex; Pupil A gave evidence to the panel that shortly before 3 July 2014, she and Mr Keith spoke about having sex, and formed a plan to do so. Her account was supported by the screenshots of messages in the hearing bundle, which included Mr Keith sending a message asking “If we had sex what would you do? To put it bluntly”. On the basis of this evidence, the panel concluded that this allegation was proved. f. Obtaining Pupil A’s personal number and/or providing your personal number to Pupil A; The panel accepted Pupil A’s evidence that she and Mr Keith exchanged personal phone