Mr Stephen Robinson

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 Robinson

Teacher reference number: 0851175

Teacher's date of birth: 11 February 1986

Location teacher worked: Birmingham, west midlands England

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 January 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 Robinson, formerly employed in Birmingham, west midlands 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 Robinson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 9 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen Robinson Teacher ref number: 0851175 Teacher date of birth: 11 February 1986 TRA reference: 20231 Date of determination: 30 January 2023 Former employer: Woodlands School, Birmingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 30 January 2023 remotely via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Robinson. The panel members were Ms Caroline Downes (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist) and Ms Susanne Staab (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Robinson that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Robinson provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Mr Robinson. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 17 January 2023. It was alleged that Mr Robinson was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that on 22 October 2021 at Birmingham Crown Court he was convicted of: 1. 1 count of attempting or engaging in sexual communication with a child pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A (1). 2. 1 count of attempting, causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in a sexual act pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.10 (1) (a). Mr Robinson accepts the allegation in its entirety. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Statement of agreed facts – pages 6 to 8 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 9 to 345 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 346 to 367 A separate document being the Notice of Meeting dated 17 January 2023 was also viewed. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Robinson on 14 November 2022. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Robinson for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Robinson had been employed at Woodland School ("the School") since 1 September 2020, as a teacher. On 12 July 2021, Mr Robinson engaged in a conversation in an online chatroom with an individual identifying themselves as a 13-year-old girl. That individual was in fact, a police officer. On 19 August 2021, Mr Robinson was arrested. On 28 September 2021, Mr Robinson pleaded guilty and was convicted in relation to each count (as set out in the allegation). On 22 October 2021, Mr Robinson was sentenced. In relation to count 1, he received a 9-month term of imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. In relation to count 2, he received a 24-month term of imprisonment, suspended for 24 months. The sentences are to be served concurrently. In addition, Mr Robinson was required to complete a rehabilitation programme, was made subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 5 years and required to sign the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years. Findings of fact The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: You are guilty of relevant offences in that on 22 October 2021 at Birmingham Crown Court you were convicted of: 1. 1 count of attempting or engaging in sexual communication with a child pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A (1). 2. 1 count of attempting, causing or inciting a female child under 16 to engage in a sexual act pursuant to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.10 (1) (a). The allegation was admitted and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. In particular, the panel accepted the certificate of conviction as proof of the commission of the offences. Therefore, the allegation was found proved. 6 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proven allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Robinson in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Robinson was 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 proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach…  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Robinson's behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Robinson's behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This was a case involving an offence of sexual communication with a child, that resulted in a suspended term of imprisonment. The Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel considered evidence of mitigating circumstances. The evidence showed that Mr Robinson had an unblemished and excellent record as a teacher. The conduct that resulted in the conviction was a one-off incident, which took place outside of school, with 7 no evidence of repetition. However, the panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Robinson's ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct and striking the right balance between the right of the teacher and the public interest. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Robinson, which involved a conviction for a relevant offence, resulting in a suspended prison sentence, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the nature of the offence. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Robinson were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against M