Mr Ryan Benney (formerly Mr Liam Taylor)

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 Ryan Benney (formerly Mr Liam Taylor)

Teacher reference number: 3370636

Teacher's date of birth: 25 April 1988

Location teacher worked: Plymouth, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 October 2024 (amended on 16 December 2024)

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 Ryan Benney, formerly employed in Plymouth, South West 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 Ryan Benney (formerly Mr Liam Taylor) Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Ryan Benney Teacher ref number: 3370636 Teacher date of birth: 25 April 1988 TRA reference: 0020239 Date of determination: 22 October 2024 (amended on 16 December 2024) Former employer: Whitleigh Primary School and Sir John Hunt Community Introduction virtually on 22 October 2024 and on 16 December 2024 to consider the case of Mr Benney. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist in the chair), Ms Debra Vaughan (lay panellist) and Mrs Karen Graham (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert 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 Benney that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Benney provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted he had been convicted of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Mr Benney. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 9 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Benney was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 5 July 2023, Mr Benney was convicted for the offence of 3 counts of Making Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a). Mr Benney admitted having been convicted of the above offence and that this constituted a conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications The panel considered paragraph 4 of the April 2024, which stated that the allegation within the statement of agreed facts had a minor amendment to reflect the correct sections of the Protection of Children Act 1978. reads as follows: Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children contrary to the Protection of Children Act The panel therefore considered whether to amend allegation 1 in the Notice of Meeting dated 9 July 2024 to reflect the wording in the statement of agreed facts. The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel was required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher. The panel acknowledged that the amendment was proposed by the presenting officer in an email to Mr Benney on 27 March 2024. Thereafter, Mr Benney signed the statement of agreed facts on 3 April 2024 which included the proposed amended wording to allegation 1. was required to correct the wording of the allegation so that this aligned with the of conviction from Plymouth Crown Court which confirmed that the offence against Mr Benney referred to section 6 of the Protection of Children Act 1978. 5 The panel considered that the amendment proposed was a correction of a typographical error. presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no prejudice or unfairness was caused. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegation as proposed. Summary of evidence In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and key people list pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of referral and response to notice of referral pages 5 to 13 Section 3: pages 14 to 16 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents pages 17 to 85 Section 5: Teacher documents pages 86 to 93 The panel members confirmed they read all the documents in advance of the meeting. The panel considered a statement of agreed facts dated 3 April 2024, signed by Mr Benney. 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 Benney 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 Benney was employed as a teacher at the School from 1 September 2011 until 19 May 2022. 6 Mr Benney was arrested on 23 August 2021. The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 5 July 2023, you were convicted for the offence of 3 counts of Making Indecent Photograph or Pseudo-Photograph of Children contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 s.1 (a) and 6. Mr Benney admitted the allegation in the statement of agreed facts dated 3 April 2024. The panel was presented with a certificate of conviction from Plymouth Crown Court, confirming that Mr Benney was convicted on 5 July 2023 of the offence particularised in this allegation. The panel noted that Mr Benney was convicted under an alternative name, being Liam Taylor, and thereafter changed his name as confirmed in the statement of agreed facts dated 3 April 2024. Mr Benney was sentenced on 10 August 2023 to a total of: 6 months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months; 18 months supervision period; 30 days of rehabilitation activity requirement; register with the police for 7 years; sexual harm prevention order for 7 years; and surcharge of £115. The panel was presented with the transcript of the sentencing remarks dated 10 August 2023, summarising the offence and the reason for the sentence imposed. The panel considered that Mr Benney had provided no further evidence to persuade the panel that there were any exceptional circumstances to call into question the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel therefore accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the commission of this offence by Mr Benney. The panel therefore found the allegation proven. Having found the facts of the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. 7 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Benney, in relation to the facts it found reference to Part 2 , Mr Benney 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: - showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others; and - not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs. Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. 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 actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting s to indecent photographs of children. The panel noted the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have an impact on the safety and security of pupils and members of the public given the harm caused to children by the creation of the indecent photographs. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr behaviour in committing the offence would likely impact public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Benney was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offence committed, and which the Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers (the Advice . This was a case concerning an offence involving indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such offences . [REDACTED] had the panel seen such evidence, the panel found the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr fitness to be a teacher. 8 The panel considered a finding that this conviction was a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. 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 is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour, any mitigation offered by Mr Benney and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. 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 considera