Mr Stefan Joao Goncalves

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Stefan Joao Goncalves

Teacher reference number: 3838950

Teacher's date of birth: 1 October 1993

Location teacher worked: Rochester, south east England

Date of professional conduct panel:26 September to 3 October 2022

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 Joao Goncalves, formerly employed in Rochester, south east 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 Joao Goncalves: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 37 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 41 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stefan Joao Goncalves Teacher ref number: 3838950 Teacher date of birth: 1 October 1993 TRA reference: 17606 Date of determination: 3 October 2022 Former employer: Hilltop Primary Academy, Kent Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 26 September 2022 to 3 October 2022 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Stefan Joao Goncalves. The panel members were Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Hannah Fellows (lay panellist) and Mr Rob Allan (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Natalie Kent of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Holly Quirk of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Goncalves was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 29 April 2022. It was alleged that Mr Goncalves was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst employed at Hilltop Primary Academy (‘the School’) between September 2016 and September 2018: 1. Between July 2017 - July 2018, he failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils and/or ex pupils, including: a) In relation to Pupil A, by: i. Telling him he was ‘special’ and/or that he was ‘more than pupil-teacher, you were friends’ or words to that effect; ii. Pulling him out of lessons to speak to him and/or going to his lessons to speak to him; iii. Holding and/or touching his hand; iv. Cuddling and/or tickling him; v. Touching and/or stroking his leg; vi. Touching and/or stroking his face; vii. Whispering in his ear; viii. Giving him one or more presents; ix. Visiting him at his home in or around January-February 2018; x. Spending time with him alone, including in the ‘container’ on or around 25 May 2018. b) In relation to Pupil B by; i. Giving and/or offering to give him lifts; ii. Asking to take him out bowling; iii. Asking him to keep a secret relating to a residential trip in [redacted]; iv. Giving him a card which referred to him as ‘my superstar captain’ and signed ‘love Mr G x’’ in or around October 2017; v. Giving him a present; vi. Touching and/or holding his leg; vii. Cuddling him; viii. Telling him that he loved him and/or that he was ‘a good looking boy’; ix. Sledging with him outside of school. 5 c) In relation to Pupil D, by: i. Telling him that he felt closer to him than other boys because he was more mature or words to that effect; ii. Giving him a present; iii. Putting his arm around him and/or whispering in his ear; iv. Asking to take him out for lunch; v. Telling him that he was one of the reasons he wanted to leave the school yet one of the reasons he wanted to stay, or words to that effect. d) In relation to Pupil E, when he was leaving and/or was no longer a pupil at the School, by; i. Giving him a card, with a picture of himself and Pupil E on, which said: 1. ‘I am extremely determined to keep you in my life’ 2. ‘I’ve never really seen you as a student but more as a little brother!’; 3. ‘I’ve never connected with a child like I have with you…’ 4. ‘You are a very special person!’ ii. When Pupil E was no longer a pupil, asking to meet him outside of school hours and/or take him for lunch; iii. Giving him a present. e) By taking photographs and/or videos of Pupil A and/or Pupil B and/or Pupil C and/or Pupil D and/or Pupil E on his personal mobile phone. 2. His conduct at allegation 1a and 1b, if proven, was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 3. One or more elements of his behaviour as may be found proven at 1 above were contrary to specific advice and/or guidance he had been given as part of a first formal written warning on or around 28 March 2018. Mr Goncalves provided no admission of fact to the TRA. However, the panel noted that Mr Goncalves, as part of a police investigation, admitted a number of the allegations, although he denied being sexually attracted to children. 6 Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Goncalves was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Goncalves. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Goncalves in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the “2018 Procedures”). The panel concluded that Mr Goncalves’ absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Goncalves had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Goncalves was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Goncalves was neither present nor represented. Application re: hearsay evidence The presenting officer made an application for admission of additional documents comprising: • Witness statement of Mother C; • Email from Individual K dated 21 March 2019; • Statement of Individual J dated 22 March 2018; • Note of incident involving the teacher; • Note of Individual L dated 27 March 2018; • LADO meeting minutes dated 5 June 2018; and 7 • LADO meeting minutes dated 5 July 2018. Together this documentation comprised “Bundle 2 – Evidence subject to application admissibility”. The presenting officer made both written and oral submissions in respect of this application. The presenting officer submitted that whilst these documents were not considered late evidence, in that they had been served upon the Mr Goncalves in accordance with paragraph 4.20 of the 2018 Procedures, the documents were to be considered hearsay evidence as the authors were not being called by the TRA. In addition, the presenting officer made an application for Pupil B’s witness statement be treated as hearsay evidence as he did not wish to attend and give oral evidence at the hearing. It is noteworthy that Pupil B was [redacted] when Mr Goncalves was his PE teacher and the alleged incidents occurred. The presenting officer submitted that Mr Goncalves had been made aware of the documentation and subsequent application and had not opposed this. In addition Mr Goncalves has not disputed the allegations or facts contained within the hearsay evidence. The presenting officer, on behalf of the TRA, relied upon paragraph 4.18 of the 2018 Procedures, which allows for the admission of any evidence, including hearsay evidence, where it is fair to do so and which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The presenting officer submitted that in all the circumstances it would be fair for the panel to admit the witness statements and exhibits of Pupil B as hearsay evidence, which are relevant to the allegations before the panel. The panel can then decide, having considered all of the evidence, the appropriate weight to be placed upon the evidence relating to Pupil B. The panel heard the legal advice in respect of Thorneycroft and El Karout. The panel considered that there were good reasons why the witnesses had not attended the hearing and noted that it would not be practical or efficient for the TRA to call every witness. The panel was mindful that the hearsay evidence was not the “sole and decisive” evidence in respect of any particular allegation and that the reliability of the evidence could therefore be tested through the questioning of other witnesses. On this basis, and in particular as Mr Goncalves had received all of the documentation and had not opposed to its admission, the panel found that it was fair to admit the hearsay evidence in the circumstances. The panel was mindful that when assessing the evidence before it, it would need to make a determination as to the weight which was given to that evidence. 8 Application to anonymise witnesses The presenting officer made a further application for the witnesses to be anonymised. The presenting officer submitted that the panel had the power to do so under paragraph 4.60 of the 2018 Procedures and submitted that allowing these witnesses to be named would create a risk that the pupils identities would become known, particularly in the local area where they are at school. The presenting officer submitted that there was no prejudice to the teacher in permitting the anonymisation of witnesses and he would be aware of the author of the s