Mr Sean Haythornthwaite

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 Sean Haythornthwaite

Location teacher worked: Cumbria, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 December 2024 to 17 December 2024

Outcome type: no order made

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 Sean Haythornthwaite, formerly employed in Cumbria, North 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 Sean Haythornthwaite: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for EducationDecember 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7Decision and reasons 7Findings of fact 8Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State17Decision 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 StateTeacher: Mr Sean Haythornthwaite TRA reference: 21134 Date of determination: 17 December 2024Former employer: Seascale School, Cumbria via Cumbria Music Service, Cumbria County CouncilIntroductionA professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 16 December 2024 to 17 December 2024, to consider the case of Mr Sean Haythornthwaite (“Mr Haythornthwaite”).The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist–in the chair), Ms Wendy Shannon (lay panellist),) and Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Adam Slack of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Haythornthwaite 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 dated 9 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Haythornthwaite was convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 22 July 2022, he was convicted at Workington Magistrates Court of the following relevant offence(s): a) Assault by beating contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988.It was further alleged that Mr Haythornthwaite was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, while employed as a teacher by Cumbria County Council (“the Council”):2. Between approximately 28 March 2022 and 22 April 2022 he failed to inform the Council that he had been charged with the criminal offence referred to at allegation 1 above.3. On or around 19 April 2022 he: a) Failed to inform the Council of his absence either promptly or at all; and/or b) Failed to inform the Council that he was attending court that day. 4. On 20 April 2022 he falsely told the Council that the reason he could not attend the inset day on 19 April was because he could not face attending that day or words to that effect. 5. His conduct at any or all of allegations 2-4 above, as may be found proved, was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. In his response to the notice of proceedings dated 4 October 2024, Mr Haythornthwaite denied the facts of the allegations. As a result, the allegations of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or conviction of a relevant offence were not admitted. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”).5 The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”).The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher.The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1 that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel has recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162.In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1:i) The panel noted that the teacher circled “No” in reply to the question ”Do you intend to be present at the hearing” in his response to the notice to the proceedings dated 4 October 2024. Mr Haythornthwaite also provided a letter with his response to the notice of proceedings “to explain his actions”. The panel therefore considered that the teacher waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place. ii) The panel did not consider that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily. Mr Haythornthwaite did not provide the panel with any evidence to suggest that an adjournment may result in him attending in the future. iii) The panel noted that the teacher had circled “No” in reply to the question “Do you intend to be represented at the hearing” in his response to the notice to the proceedings dated 4 October 2024. There was no evidence to suggest that there was any wish to adjourn the hearing to obtain legal representation. iv) The panel considered the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in 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 representations made by the teacher within his letter to the TRA and is able to ascertain some lines of defence. The panel has the teacher’s evidence addressing mitigation and is able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon are to be called to give evidence and the panel can test the teacher’s evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points 6 as are favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. The panel is also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account.v) The panel also considered the risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the teacher. The panel noted that Mr Haythornthwaite did not provide any reason for his non-attendance, but clearly circled“No” in reply to the question”Do you intend to be present at the hearing”. vi) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. vii) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. viii) The panel also noted that there are a number of witnesses present at the hearing, who are prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for them to return again. Delaying the case may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel therefore decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel consideredthat in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear and by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible,that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people–pages 3 to 6 Section 2: Notice of Referral and response, Notice of Proceedings and response, letter from Mr Haythornthwaite to the TRA–pages 7 to 46 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 47 to 56 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents –pages 57 to 182 7 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 individuals who were called to give oral evidence on behalf of the TRA: Witness A –[REDACTED]Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] Decision and reasonsThe panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision.Mr Haythornthwaite was employed by Cumbria Music Service, Cumbria County Council(“the Council”) as a peripatetic music teacher and was engaged to teach within Cumbria and taught at Seascale School (“the School”). On or around 3 February 2022, a parent complaint was received by the School in relation to Mr Haythornthwaite’s conduct towards Pupil A. It was alleged that Mr Haythornthwaite had picked up Pupil A by the ankles and held her upside down in front of pupils. The School notified the LADO and a meeting was held between the head of service and Mr Haythornthwaite. On 31 March 2022, Mr Haythornthwaite was informed of the police decision to charge him in respect of the incident with Pupil A. Mr Haythornthwaite did not inform the Council of such charge at this time. The initial court hearing took place on 19 April 2022. An inset day was also scheduled on this day. Mr Haythornthwaite did not attend the inset day. The court date was adjourned to 22 July 2022. The next day on 20 April 2022, Mr Haythornthwaite informed the Council that he did not attend the inset day because he could not face people asking questions as to whether he was better. On 26 April 2022, Mr Haythornthwaite was suspended from the Council. 8 On 22 July 2022, Mr Haythornthwaite was convicted of Assault by Beat