Unknown Teacher

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

Teacher reference number:

0041777

Teacher's date of birth:

28 February 1973

Location teacher worked:

Croydon, South London

Date of professional conduct panel:

7 March 2019

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 Stephen Hepworth formerly employed in Croydon, South London.

The proceedings were held at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Rd, Coventry CV1 2WT at 9.30am on 7 March 2019.

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 Stephen Hepworth: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 E. Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen Hepworth Teacher ref number: 0041777 Teacher date of birth: 28/02/1973 TRA reference: 17045 Date of determination: 7 March 2019 Former employer: The Archbishop Lanfranc Academy A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 7 March 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Stephen Hepworth. The panel members were Ms Alison Walsh (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Cooper (teacher panellist) and Mr Kevin Robertshaw (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nick Leale of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Natalie Millington of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Hepworth was present and represented by Mr Tom Stephens of Counsel. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 20 December 2018. It was alleged that Mr Stephen Hepworth was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at The Archbishop Lanfranc Academy he: 1. Retained and/or accessed an image of two female former pupils which he had obtained as a result of his earlier employment at Shirely High School, Croydon between 1 Sept 2009 and 31 December 2014. 2. On or around December 2015 and whilst on school premises he was recorded on video using the image described at Allegation 1 above to; a. view the image to look between the legs and/or at the underwear of one of the pupils; b. zoom in between the legs and/or on the underwear of one of the pupils; c. create one or more "upskirt" images of one of the pupils. 3. His actions as may be found proven at allegations 1-2 above were sexually motivated. Mr Hepworth admitted paragraphs 1and 2 in full. Paragraph 3 was denied. C. Preliminary applications Mr Hepworth applied to admit his signed witness statement dated 7 March 2019. This was not opposed and the panel agreed to add the statement to the bundle. It was added at pages 56 to 63. Mr Hepworth also requested that any part of the hearing that made reference to his health be held in private. The panel agreed to this request. A minor amendment was made to the factual allegations. In paraprgah 1, the word 'in' was replaced with the word 'between', with the agreement of the panel. Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 20 5 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 23 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 55 In addition, the panel agreed to accept Mr Hepworth's statement into the bundle at pages 56-63, as stated above. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence solely from Mr Hepworth. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: We have carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision. We confirm that we have read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. This case relates to a teacher who was filmed by pupils creating a magnified "upskirt" image of the upper inner thigh and genital area of one of his female former pupils while using a school computer. It was alleged that he did this for sexual gratification. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for the following reasons: 1. You retained and/or accessed an image of two female former pupils which you had obtained as a result of your earlier employment at Shirely High School, Croydon between 1 Sept 2009 and 31 December 2014. This factual particular was admitted by Mr Hepworth. The admission was further supported by Mr Hepworth's written statement and evidence under oath. The panel finds this proven. 2. On or around December 2015 and whilst on school premises you were recorded on video using the image described at Allegation 1 above to; a. view the image to look between the legs and/or at the underwear of one of the pupils; 6 b. zoom in between the legs and/or on the underwear of one of the pupils; c. create one or more "upskirt" images of one of the pupils. These factual particulars were admitted by Mr Hepworth. These admissions were further supported by Mr Hepworth's written statement and evidence under oath. He fully and unequivocally accepts that this is what he did. The videos we have watched confirm that he acted as described above and admitted by him. 3. Your actions as may be found proven at allegations 1-2 above were sexually motivated. The panel find Mr Hepworth's actions as admitted and proved in relation to the facts as described in paragraphs 1 and 2 above to have been sexually motivated. It is, in the panel's view, clear that Mr Hepworth acted as he did for sexual gratification. The panel watched two videos created on pupils' mobile phones, Mr Hepworth accessing an image of two female former pupils sitting on a table on a school computer. One of the girls was wearing a skirt that was set well above the knee line. He then proceeds to zoom in on the part of the image that shows the pupil's upper thigh and genital area. It is not possible to make out the pupil's underwear but several times on the video Mr Hepworth is seen to zoom in on that part of her body. His view is focused on her upper thighs and up her skirt. He proceeds to refine and crop the image on at least two occasions in order to restrict the view to the area up her skirt, at the top of her thighs and, although in darkness, her genital area. After zooming in and cropping the image he stops to stare at it for more than a few seconds. The videos are cumulatively approximately two minutes long and focused entirely on the part of the pupil's body as referred to above. We entirely reject Mr Hepworth's suggestion that he was simply "playing around" and was acting in no more than a "thoughtless" way. We reject the suggestion that his motive was "trying out" an updated media player. If that was the situation he would have had no reason to spend the time he did zooming in on and cropping an image of the aforementioned part of the girl's body. We believe it is no coincidence that he was viewing the image that he was; he was simply doing it for sexual gratification. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations to have been proven, the panel has gone on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which we refer to as “the Advice”. 7 The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Hepworth in relation to the facts found proven, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by reference to Part Two, Mr Hepworth is 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;  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Hepworth amounts to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Mr Hepworth has been found guilty of using a school computer during working hours for actions motivated by the pursuance of sexual gratification. He accessed an image of two pupils and created a zoomed in, upskirt image of one pupil's upper inner thighs / underwear area. He did not act accordingly for a few seconds but rather for at least two minutes during which time he stared at the image and repeatedly magnified or cropped the image. He explains the behaviour as "playing around" or "thoughtlessness" when in fact it is clear to the panel that there cannot have been no motive other than a sexual motive for his actions. Accordingly, the panel is satisfied that Mr Hepworth is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel has taken into account how the teaching profession is viewed by others and considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel has taken account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way they behave. The findi