Mr Robert MacCallum

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 MacCallum

Teacher reference number: 0756219

Teacher's date of birth: 29 September 1983

Location teacher worked: Manchester

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 November 2022 to 8 November 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 MacCallum, formerly employed in Manchester.

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 MacCallum: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Robert MacCallum Teacher ref number: 0756219 Teacher date of birth: 29 September 1983 TRA reference: 19590 Date of determination: 8 November 2022 Former employer: William Hulme’s Grammar School, Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 2 to 8 November 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Robert MacCallum. The panel members were Ms Laura Flynn (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr David Raff (lay panellist) and Ms Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer on behalf of the TRA was Ms Naomh Gallagher of Halycon Chambers. Mr MacCallum was present and was represented by Mr Rob Young of NASUWT. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 9 August 2022. It was alleged that Mr MacCallum was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at William Hulme’s Grammar School: 1. He engaged in inappropriate professional conduct and/or failed to maintain appropriate boundaries in that: a) During Former Pupil A’s time at the School, between [REDACTED], he: i. engaged in frequent 1:1 contact with Former Pupil A; ii. gave Former Pupil A gifts; iii. gave Former Pupil A cards; iv. gave Former Pupil A money so that [REDACTED] could purchase a bus ticket; v. said words to the effect of ‘I know our relationship is inappropriate but I can help you and/or I just care about you so much and/or I adore you and/or I just feel like I need to be here for you and/or we have a connection’; b) In or around [REDACTED], whilst on a School trip to [REDACTED] he: i. purchased and/or provided [REDACTED] to Former Pupil A; ii. engaged in inappropriate physical contact with Former Pupil A by holding [REDACTED] hand; c) On or around [REDACTED] he: i. attended a ‘night out’ with Former Pupil A; ii. kissed Former Pupil A; iii. arranged a hotel room for yourself and Former Pupil A; iv. engaged in sexual intercourse with Former Pupil A; 2. On or around [REDACTED], he was dishonest and/or deliberately misled Individual A in that he made the following statements to him when he knew them to be untrue: 5 a) He did not have any ‘affair’ or inappropriate relationship with Former Pupil A; b) He ‘bumped into’ Former Pupil A in a bar [REDACTED] while he was with his friends in a chance meeting; c) He did not have Former Pupil A’s phone number and had not made contact with Former Pupil A by text. 3. On one or more occasions between [REDACTED], he failed to inform Individual A: a) About the full extent of his relationship with Former Pupil A; and/or b) About the details of the event that occurred on [REDACTED]; c) That he had spoken to Former Pupil A on or around [REDACTED] for approximately 1 hour and 30 minutes; d) That he had contacted Former Pupil A by text message on one or more occasions. Mr MacCallum admitted allegations 1(a)(iii) (to the extent that he had sent one card), 1(c)(ii), 1(c)(iii), 2(c), 3(b), 3(c) and 3(d). Although previously he had admitted 3(a) he sought to change his answer to not admitted for this allegation. Mr MacCallum denied that the admitted allegations amounted to unprofessional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr MacCallum denied allegations 1(a)(i), 1(a)(ii), 1(a)(iv), 1(a)(v), 1(b)(i), 1(b)(ii), 1(c)(i), 1(c)(iv), 2(a), 2(b) and now 3(a). Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Shortly after Pupil A started giving [REDACTED] evidence, the Panel briefly adjourned and convened to discuss whether or not the hearing should be adjourned to enable Pupil A to put in place the witness support which had been arranged as a special measure at a case management hearing on 9 September 2022. Pupil A confirmed that [REDACTED] wanted to continue without witness support and that [REDACTED] was fully aware of [REDACTED] ability to call witness support for the PCPH. The Panel advised [REDACTED] to seriously consider arranging witness support for [REDACTED] cross-examination to which Pupil A confirmed that [REDACTED] had someone who [REDACTED] could call for this if [REDACTED] needed to but that [REDACTED] preference was to continue with the hearing. Summary of evidence 6 Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 6 to 9 • Section 2: Notice of referral/proceedings – pages 11 to 26 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 28 to 106 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 108 to 303 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 305 to 318 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Pupil A, former student • Pupil B, former student • Individual A [REDACTED] • Individual B [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr MacCallum commenced employment at William Hulme’s Grammar School (‘the School’) as a teacher of PE and head of Year 12 on 1 September 2008. On [REDACTED], the School received a third-party complaint from [REDACTED], Pupil B, who raised concerns about the appropriateness of Mr MacCallum’s relationship with Pupil A as they were alleged to have engaged in sexual activity. The School reported the complaint to the LADO who concluded that there was no reason to doubt Mr MacCallum when he said that he met Pupil A by accident whilst they were both out [REDACTED] and that there was nothing further to it. The LADO’s view was that, whilst possibly inappropriate, the meeting was not illegal. 7 On [REDACTED], Individual B, took a call from former Pupil A who was [REDACTED] of age. Pupil A said that [REDACTED] and Mr MacCallum did have a consensual relationship earlier in [REDACTED] and that [REDACTED] friends had pressured [REDACTED] to tell the School. Pupil A described [REDACTED] relationship with Mr MacCallum as “creating a situation of [REDACTED] dependency” during [REDACTED] time as a pupil at the School. Individual A, called the LADO for advice. The LADO’s view was that this course of conduct was not illegal and they advised Individual A to speak to Mr MacCallum about professional conduct and the expectations of the School, which the School did. On [REDACTED], Pupil A contacted the School to speak to Individual A. Following a meeting, [REDACTED] then sent a written complaint to the School. The complaint included allegations of inappropriate behaviour of Mr MacCallum towards Pupil A between [REDACTED]. In [REDACTED], the School again contacted the LADO and commenced an internal investigation. The allegations raised further questions which also formed part of the internal investigation, which related to previous management guidance that Mr MacCalllum received and signed in [REDACTED]. The LADO’s advice was to reinforce professional standards to Mr MacCallum and stated, “Although not illegal, it feels uncomfortable”. A disciplinary hearing was held on 16 October 2020. On 19 October 2020 it was agreed that Mr MacCallum’s employment at the School would be terminated by mutual consent on 31 October 2020. The School referred the matter to the TRA on 21 October 2020. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proved, for these reasons: 1. You engaged in inappropriate professional conduct and/or failed to maintain appropriate boundaries in that: a) During Former Pupil A’s time at the School, between [REDACTED], you i. engaged in frequent 1:1 contact with Former Pupil A; ii. gave Former Pupil A gifts; iii. gave Former Pupil A cards; 8 iv. gave Former Pupil A money so that [REDACTED] could purchase a bus ticket; v. said words to the effect of ‘I know our relationship is inappropriate but I can help you and/or I just care about you so much and/or I adore you and/or I just feel like I need to be here for you and/or we have a connection’; The panel noted Mr MacCallum’s statement, in which he denied that there was evidence that he treated Pupil A differently from other students and the claims that he had repeatedly bought [REDACTED] gifts, including [REDACTED]. Mr MacCallum denied that he had ever told Pupil A their relationship was inappropriate, that they were friends, or made any efforts to create a dependency. Mr MacCallum stated that other staff members were available to support [REDACTED]. The panel noted the witness statement and oral evidence of Pupil A. Pupil A explained that whilst [REDACTED] was a pupil at the School [REDACTED]. Pupil A explained that the School were quite accommodating to [REDACTED] needs in terms of giving [REDACTED] places to go if [REDACTED] did not want to be in a lesson. After the summer of [REDA