Mr Scott Evans

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 Scott Evans

Teacher reference number: 1158008

Teacher's date of birth: 13 February 1988

Location teacher worked: Somerset, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 October 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 Scott Evans, formerly employed in Somerset, South West England.

Mr Scott Evans: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 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 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Scott Evans Teacher ref number: 1158008 Teacher date of birth: 13 February 1988 TRA reference: 0019316 Date of determination: 2 October 2023 Former employer: King Arthur’s School, South Somerset Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 2 October 2023 to consider the case of Mr Evans. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (Chair – lay panellist), Ms Miranda Norris (teacher panellist) and Ms Helen Kielty (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor 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 Evans that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Evans provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer (Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP), Mr Evans or his representative, Mr John Evans. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 28 July 2023. It was alleged that Mr Evans was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: On 9 March 2021 at Taunton Crown Court Mr Evans was convicted of the following offences: 1. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 01/02/19 – 31/08/19 (Mr Evans subsequently requested in writing that the dates of the allegation be amended to 01/07/19 – 31/08/19, which the panel accepted); 2. Engage in sexual communication with a child on 01/07/19 - 31/08/19; 3. Engage in sexual communication with a child on 17/07/19 - 28/08/19; 4. Cause/incite female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity – offender 18 or over – no penetration 01/07/19 - 31/08/19; 5. Cause/incite female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity – offender 18 or over – no penetration on 17/07/19 - 31/08/19. Mr Evans admitted the facts and allegations. The panel noted Mr Evans had requested the amendment prior to the notice of meeting being sent to him. The panel has seen no evidence of objection to the amendment by the TRA and the panel therefore understood this to be nothing more than a clerical error. Likewise, the panel noted that whilst the allegation in the notice of meeting referred to a “conviction on 12 April 2020” it was evident from the documents presented to the panel, including the certificate of conviction, that this was a typo. The correct dates were that on 9 March 2021 Mr Evans was convicted and on 12 April 2021 Mr Evans was sentenced. As such, the panel saw no prejudice to either party in making this amendment to the allegation. 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 4 5 Section 2: Notice of referral and response – pages 6 to 13 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 15 to 25 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 111 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 113 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Evans on 16 March 2023. 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 Evans 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. In September 2012 Mr Evans commenced employment at King Arthur’s School (the “School”) as a Teacher of Geography. In 2014 Mr Evans was appointed as the Curriculum Team Leader for Humanities alongside his role as a Teacher of Geography. In October 2019 the Police informed the School that Mr Evans had been arrested for inappropriate conduct towards pupils. Mr Evans was suspended from the School’s employment. At around the same time the LADO was notified. Mr Evans was dismissed from the School following a disciplinary hearing held on 2 March 2020. In March 2021 Mr Evans was convicted at Taunton Crown Court. On 12 April 2021 he was sentenced. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against Mr Evans proved, for these reasons: On 9 March 2021 at Taunton Crown Court Mr Evans was convicted of the following offences: 6 1. Making indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children on 01/07/19 – 31/08/19; 2. Engage in sexual communication with a child on 01/07/19 - 31/08/19; 3. Engage in sexual communication with a child on 17/07/19 - 28/08/19; 4. Cause/incite female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity – offender 18 or over – no penetration 01/07/19 - 31/08/19; 5. Cause/incite female child under 16 to engage in sexual activity – offender 18 or over – no penetration on 17/07/19 - 31/08/19. The allegations were admitted and were supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle, the allegations were, therefore, found proved. In particular, the panel had regard to the certificate of conviction within the bundle, which provided conclusive evidence of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Evans accepted that between April and May 2019, he began messaging Pupil A privately via social media using an account name [REDACTED]. He further admitted that in or around May 2019, he also began messaging Pupil B privately via social media using a different account name [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Mr Evans accepted that he sent indecent images of himself to Pupil A and Pupil B via social media and that he encouraged both pupils to send him indecent images and that he received indecent images of Pupil A and Pupil B. Mr Evans also accepted that he engaged in sexual communication with Pupil A and Pupil B via social media, including that he encouraged the pupils to delete the messages exchanged. Mr Evans also admitted that he caused Pupil A and Pupil B to engage in sexual activity by encouraging and inciting them to masturbate whilst he communicated with them via social media. On 12 April 2021, Mr Evans was sentenced to a total of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, a sexual harm prevention order for a period of 10 years, that he may be [REDACTED] and that he appear on the sex offenders’ register for 10 years. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. 7 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Evans, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Evans 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position. o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions. o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others 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. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. Mr Evans engaged in communications of a sexual nature with pupils in his school. He used his position as a means to engage with the pupils. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Evans’ behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Evans was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Evans’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed, and which the Advice states is likely to be considered “a re