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:

0536563

Teacher's date of birth:

20 January 1984

Location teacher worked:

Leicester, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel:

20 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 Roskelly, formerly employed in Leicester, East Midlands.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 20 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 Roskelly: 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 7 Witnesses 8 E. Decision and reasons 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Robert Roskelly Teacher ref number: 0536563 Teacher date of birth: 20 January 1984 NCTL case reference: 13684 Date of determination: 20 February 2017 Former employer: Winstanley Community College, Leicester A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 20 February at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Robert Roskelly The panel members were Mrs Kathy Thomson (teacher panellist); Mr Anthony Greenwood (lay panellist), Mr Phillip Riggon (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Patricia D’Souza of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the National College was Ms Laura Hackney of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Roskelly was not present but was represented by Mr Steven Williams of Forest Williams Ltd. 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 23 December 2016. It was alleged that Mr Robert Roskelly 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 Winstanley Community College, Leicester and after leaving that school he: 1. Was Facebook friends with one or more students, including Pupils A and B 2. In summer 2013 he held fitness classes for a group of students on school premises, without permission, some of whom were topless 3. Spent time alone with Pupil B in his bedroom 4. Being present when Pupil A consumed drugs, including Viagra or similar stimulant 5. Slept over at Pupil A’s House 6. Had Pupils A and C sleep overnight at his house 7. Gave Pupil C money on at least 2 occasions 8. Engaged in drug taking activities with Pupil C Mr Roskelly has signed a Statement of Agreed Facts dated 19 October 2016 in which he admits the facts of the allegations against him and that those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. However, he disputes the context of the allegations therefore this matter is proceeding as a disputed case. C. Preliminary applications Proceeding in absence The panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Roskelly. The panel is satisfied that the National College has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 , (the “Regulations”). 5 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 dete rmined to exercise its discretion under Paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Roskelly. The panel understands that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of Mr Roskelly has to be exercised with the u tmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making its decision, the panel has noted that Mr Roskelly may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has taken account of the various factors drawn to it s attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel is satisfied that Mr Roskelly is actually aware of the proceedings. The panel notes that the Notice of Proceedings was sent to an address that Mr Roskelly previously responded to; he has completed the Notice of Proceedings Response Form and signed and dated the Statement of Agreed Facts. Mr Roskelly indicated to the National College last week that he would not attend the hearing in person. The panel therefore considers that Mr Roskelly has waived his right to be present in person at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. Mr Roskelly has however , instructed his representative to provide submissions on his behalf at this hearing. The panel has had reg ard 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 in a teacher’s absence. There is no indication that an adjournment might result in Mr Roskelly attending the hearing in person. The panel has had regard to the extent of the disadvantage to Mr Roskelly 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 provided by Mr Roskelly and may receive further submissions from his representative which will assist the panel in ascertaining the lines of defence. Neither party is calling any witnesses and therefore any documentary evidence in the bundle will be treate d as hearsay evidence. The panel, which is experienced in such matters, can consider such points as are favourable to Mr Roskelly, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel has not identified any significant gaps in the documentary evidence pr ovided to it and should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the 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 exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of 6 risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard Mr Roskelly’s account. The panel has had regard to the seriousness of this case, and the potential consequences for Mr Roskelly and has accepted that fairness to him is of prime importance. However, it considers that in light of Mr Roskelly’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and having the benefit of Mr Roskelly’s representative’s submissions ; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding withi n a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Application for hearing to be heard in private Mr Roskelly’s representative submitted to the panel that it is Mr Roskelly’s understanding that this matter is a hearing. The presenting officer submitted that it was suggested that this matter should be convened as a meeting and the National College made an impartial decision to hold this matter as a hearing instead. Mr Roskelly’s representative submitted that Mr Roskelly is aware that the bundle of documents before the panel would be considered at today’s hearing and he does not object to this matter proceeding as a hearing at this stage. Mr Roskelly’s representative made an application for this hearing to proceed in private. The panel has therefore, considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Regulations and paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. 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 entire hearing. The panel has taken into account th e 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 from the bun dle that Mr Roskelly has referred to concerns arising from confidential matters [Redacted] relating to Mr Roskelly’s personal circumstances which are why he should like this matter to proceed in private. Mr Roskelly’s representative submitted that rumours about sexual innuendo that may arise from these allegations as a result of references to specific Facebook exchanges is another reason as to why this matter should proceed in private. The panel has balanced the reasons why Mr Roskelly has requested that the public be excluded against the competing reasons for which a public hearing is required. 7 The panel notes that any departure from the general rule has to be no greater than the extent reasonably necessary and that interference for a limited period of th e 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 Roskelly’s personal circumstances. The presenting officer and legal advisor drew the panel’s attention to paragraph 4.59 of the Procedures which state that where a panel holds a hearing in private, the panel will still announce in public its decision regarding whet her the facts have been proven ( stage 1) and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession in to disrepute (stage 2). The panel could understand why Mr Roskelly would consider that the allegations may give rise to some sexual innuendo however, excluding the public from the entire hearing is not in the public interest and would not prevent any pote