Mr Stephen Olanipekun

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 Stephen Olanipekun

Teacher reference number: 1042215

Teacher's date of birth: 01 October 1984

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 03 to 07 July 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 Stephen Olanipekun, formerly employed in London, 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 Stephen Olanipekun: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education 07 July 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 27 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 32 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen Olanipekun Teacher ref number: 1042215 Teacher date of birth: 1 October 1984 TRA reference: 0019032 Date of determination: 7 July 2023 Former employer: Blackfen School for Girls Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually via Microsoft Teams on 3 to 7 July, to consider the case of Mr Olanipekun. The panel members were Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist – in the Chair), Mrs Beverley Williams (teacher panellist), and Mr Maurice Smith (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Patricia D’Souza of Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Olanipekun was present and was represented by Mr Jim Olphert of Mountford Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 19 April 2023 as amended in the course of the hearing. It was alleged that Mr Olanipekun was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: Whilst employed as a Teacher at Blackfen School for Girls from April 2015: 1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils, in that: a. In or around May 2018 he: i. was alone in a room at the school with Pupil A; ii. was alone with Pupil A behind a locked door. b. In or around September 2018 he shared a meal with Pupil A; c. On 4 October 2018 he drove Pupil A in his car; d. In or around September – November 2018 he sent text messages to Pupil B that: i. were inappropriate in nature; ii. included messages sent late at night; iii. included one or more kisses ("x") iv. included swear words; v. shared personal information; vi. were sent at a time when he was suspended by the school whilst they investigated his conduct towards Pupil A; e. He added and/or messaged and/or corresponded with one or more pupils on Snap Chat; f. On or around 28 June 2019 he allowed Pupil C and/or Pupil D to share an Uber with him; 2. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact with one or more pupils, in that: 5 a. In or around May 2018 he allowed Pupil A: i. [Redacted] ii. to touch his hair b. On or around 28 June 2019 at the Sixth Form Prom he: i. held Pupil C's hand(s) ii. was pressed together with Pupil C while dancing; iii. allowed Pupil C to lean on him and/or put her head on his shoulder; iv. put his arm around Pupil C; v. placed his hand so that it was touching Pupil C's thigh; vi. put his arm back around Pupil C after it had been removed by another teacher; vii. recommenced dancing with Pupil C after he had been separated by other members of staff. 3. His conduct as may be found proved at Allegation 1(c) was: a. despite words of advice on or around May 2018 in respect of his conduct towards Pupil A; b. contrary to an instruction not to transport pupils by car given during Safeguarding Training on or around 1 October 2018. 4. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(d)(i) to 1(d)(vi), 1(e) and/or 1(f) and 2(b) was despite a Management Instruction Letter on 18 October 2018 concerning his conduct towards pupils; 5. He failed to take appropriate action to ensure that Pupil B was safeguarded in or around September – November 2018 concerning Pupil B's disclosures in relation to her wellbeing; and 6. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(a) and/or 2(b) was sexually motivated. 7. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(d)(i) to 1(d)(vi) was notwithstanding that Pupil B was vulnerable. 6 In or around 15 January 2020, whilst applying for the role of 'Project Manager' at the East London Business Alliance: 8. He provided false and/or misleading information, in particular: a. He stated that his employment at Blackfen School had ended in August 2017 when in fact he had been employed there until approximately August 2019; b. He stated that he had been employed at Company A from September 2017 when in fact he had been employed at Blackfen School; c. His application concealed the fact that he was employed at Blackfen School during the period of his alleged conduct at Allegations (1) and (2). 9. His conduct as may be found proven at 8 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Olanipekun confirmed in his response to the Notice of Referral form dated 10 May 2023 and his statement to the TRA that the factual particulars of the allegations were partly admitted. During the hearing his representative confirmed that Mr Olanipekun admitted the factual particulars of the following allegations 1(c), 1(d)(i) to 1(d) (vi), 1(e), 1(f), 2(a)(ii), 2(b)(i), 2(b)(iv), 3(a), 3(b), 4, 5, 7, 8(a) to 8(c) and allegation 9. His representative confirmed that Mr Olanipekun admitted that he was, in relation to some of his conduct, guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. As not all the factual particulars of the allegations are admitted, the case therefore proceeded as a disputed case. Preliminary applications Amendment of allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend the allegations in the following manner as these had been amended previously but some of the numbering of the allegations had not been updated: 1. To amend the date in Allegation 1(b) to change this from May 2018 to September 2018. 2. To refer to allegation 1(c) instead of 1(d) in allegation 3. 3. Allegation 4 should remove reference to 1(e)(i) to 1(e)(v) and replace this with 1(d)(i) to 1(d)(vi) and remove reference to 1(g). Such that the stem of allegation 4 should read as follows: 7 Your conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1(d)(i) to 1(d)(vi), 1(e) and/or 1(f) and 2(b) was despite a Management Instruction Letter on 18 October 2018 concerning his conduct towards pupils 4. Allegation 7 similarly should remove 1(e)(i) to 1(e)(vi) and replace this with 1(d)(i) to 1(d)(vi). The presenting officer submitted these amendments were not prejudicial to Mr Olanipekun. His representative confirmed these amendments were not opposed by Mr Olanipekun. The legal advisor advised that paragraphs 4.56 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching profession ("the Procedures") refers to amendment of the allegations. This provides that, subject to it being deemed to be in the interests of justice , a panel may amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation at any time prior to making findings of fact. The panel accordingly has a discretion. The panel considered whether there is any prejudice, or potential prejudice, to Mr Olanipekun as a result of the amendments, were the application to be allowed. The panel considered that the proposed amendments did not alter the substance of the allegations or result in new factual particulars being alleged or render any more serious allegations being pursued. These amendments were not prejudicial to Mr Olanipekun they simply represented a correction in numbering which were necessary as a result of changes to the allegations arising from a previous hearing. The date in allegation 1(b) was approved at a previous hearing in this matter. The amendment application was therefore accepted by the panel. Previous Case Management Hearing The presenting officer updated the panel in the course of the hearing that two witnesses that the TRA wishes to rely upon have not re-confirmed they are available to give evidence on the second day of the hearing. It was suggested by the presenting officer that the panel wait until 1pm when it will become clear if both witnesses are not available so that the TRA may make a hearsay application in relation to both witnesses or just one. The teacher's representative submitted that the panel needs to know the availability of both witnesses before it can make a fair decision on hearsay. It was submitted that a previous panel in this case, has made a hearsay decision in relation to one of these witnesses and Mr Olanipekun's representative is likely to rely on similar submissions in relation to this same witness. Mr Olanipekun's representative submitted that the panel can take account of the fact that a previous panel has made a decision not to accept a hearsay application in relation to this witness and the panel should be aware of it. The presenting officer said the submissions that Mr Olanipekun's representative may wish to make in relation to a hearsay application 8 may not be the same as has been made before if both witnesses do not attend to give oral evidence. The panel is minded to review the previous hearsay decision that was made at the previous case management hearing as it could be relevant, at a later stage, if a further hearsay application is made by the TRA. Hearsay application During the second day of the hearing, the presenting officer made an application for two of the TRA's witnesses' evidence to be considered by the panel as hearsay evidence as the TRA has not heard today that either witness is able to attend to provide oral evidence. The panel has had regard to a previous decision made at a case management hearing. The panel accepted that the hearsay decision made, in that hearing, was in diffe