Mr Stefan Hofkes

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 Stefan Hofkes

Teacher reference number: 3475616

Teacher's date of birth: 13 January 1972

Location teacher worked: Bristol, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 to 16 October 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 Stefan Hofkes, formerly employed in Bristol, 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 Stefan Hofkes: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stefan Hofkes Teacher ref number: 3475616 Teacher date of birth: 13 January 1972 TRA reference: 21074 Date of determination: 16 October 2024 Former employer: Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital, Bristol (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 October 2024 to 16 October 2024, by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Stefan Hofkes. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist) and Ms Sarah Daniel (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millen of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Hofkes was not present, nor was he represented at the hearing. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 26 June 2024. It was alleged that Mr Hofkes was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a teacher at Queen Elizabeth’s Hospital (“the School”): 1. Between around September 2019 and December 2021 he made inappropriate comments to Pupil A about his: a) appearance; and/or b) sexuality. 2. On or around March 2020, he made a comment to Pupil A that was of an inappropriate and/or threatening nature, that he “want[s] to headbutt your mum”, or words to that effect. 3. In or around 2019, he exchanged telephone numbers with Pupil A; 4. On one or more occasions in or around 2019, he exchanged text message with Pupil A; 5. On one of more occasions in or around 2019, he allowed Pupil A to visit his home; 6. On one or more occasions between March 2020 and May 2021, he arranged to meet and/or met Pupil A in person outside of the School; 7. Between September 2019 and May 2021, he hugged Pupil A; 8. On unknown dates, he touched Pupil A on: a) their bottom; and/or b) their shoulder. 9. On or around 22 June 2019, he bought Pupil A alcohol; 10. On one or more occasions between around 2019 and May 2021, he walked Pupil A home. 11. On one or more occasions between around 2019 and May 2021, he gave Pupil A a lift home. 12. On one or more occasions between around 2019 and May 2021, he gave Pupil B a lift home. 13. On one or more occasions between around 2019 and May 2021, he walked Pupil B home. 14. His conduct at paragraphs 1, and/or 5, and/or 6, and/or 7, and/or 8, and/or 9 above was sexually motivated. 5 Mr Hofkes was not present at the hearing, and both the allegations of fact and whether his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute were taken to be not admitted. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether the hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). 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 May 2020, (the “Procedures”). Although there was recent correspondence with Mr Hofkes’ representatives around the provision of the panel bundle, the panel noted that the documents relied upon by the TRA were attached to the Notice of Proceedings and had therefore been disclosed to Mr Hofkes. 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 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 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. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention by the legal adviser from the case of R v Jones, and addressed these as set out below. On 9 October 2024, Mr Hofkes’ representative confirmed they were still acting for Mr Hofkes. The following day the representative confirmed they would not be attending the hearing, although there was to be additional documentation to place before the panel for consideration. On 11 October, the presenting officer’s firm enquired whether Mr Hofkes would be in attendance. The representative responded that Mr Hofkes would not be attending, and no reason was provided for his absence. No further documentation had been received for the Panel’s consideration. The panel therefore considered that Mr 6 Hofkes had waived his right to be present at the hearing in the knowledge of when and where the hearing was taking place. There was no indication that Mr Hofkes might attend voluntarily if the hearing was adjourned. Any adjournment would likely be for several months in order that a panel could be convened. Mr Hofkes indicated by email that all communications were to be sent to his legal representative. Mr Hofkes was legally represented when he decided not to attend the hearing. The panel had the benefit of a statement written by Mr Hofkes on 15 December 2022 and was able to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel had the teacher’s evidence regarding insight and was able to take this into account at the relevant stage. The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon were to be called to give evidence and the panel was able to test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as were favourable to the teacher, as were reasonably available on the evidence. The panel was 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. The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that, if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. 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. The conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst the teacher was working at the School. The School and Pupil A would have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. The panel also noted that there were two witnesses, including Pupil A (who was a vulnerable witness) who were scheduled to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient and distressing for this to be rearranged. Delaying the case may impact upon the memories of those witnesses. The panel considered that in light of: • the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; • an adjournment being unlikely to secure Mr Hofkes’ attendance; • the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; 7 • the potential impact on the memories of witnesses; and • the public interest in having this matter concluded in an efficient manner it should proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Hofkes, taking such measures referred to above to address any unfairness insofar as is possible. Late admission of documents During the panel’s drafting of its findings of fact, unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, a letter dated 15 October 2024 from the teacher’s representative was received at the end of the second day by the presenting officer’s firm. The letter made representations on behalf of Mr Hofkes and enclosed a statement from [REDACTED] and two character references dated 2 May 2023 and 4 May 2023 respectively (“the Late Documents”). At the time of receipt of the Late Documents, all witnesses due to give evidence had been heard, the panel had heard closing submissions and the panel had already reached its findings in its private deliberations. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer and received legal advice regarding the late admission of the Late Documents but did not read the documents before making its decision whether to admit the documents at the stage of determining the factual allegations. The Late Documents were not served by Mr Hofkes, or his representatives at least 4 weeks prior to the hearing in accordance with paragraph 5.37 of the Procedures. The panel therefore understood it had a discretion under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures to decide whether to admit the Late Documents. Paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures states that the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was informed that the statement fro