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:

9561638

Teacher's date of birth:

1 July 1974

Location teacher worked:

Oxfordshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel:

24 April 2018

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 teacher Mr Steven Birkett, formerly employed in Oxfordshire, South East England.

The proceedings were held at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH at 9.30am on 24 April 2018.

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 Steven Birkett: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2018                       Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 D. Decision and reasons 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 1 0 2 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Steven Birkett Teacher ref number: 9561638 Teacher date of birth: 1 July 1974 TRA case reference: 16452 Date of determination: 24 April 2018 Former employer: Chenderit School, Archery Road, Middleton Cheney, Banbury Oxfordshire, OX17 2QR ("the School") A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency ("TRA") convened on 24 April 2018 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Steven Birkett. The panel members were Mr Tony James, former teacher panellist, Ms Nicolé Jackson, lay panellist and Ms Kathy Thomson, teacher panellist and chair. The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Matthew Corrie, Barrister of Blake Morgan LLP. solicitors. By agreement the allegation was considered at a meeting in private and so neither a case presenter nor the teacher or a representative were present. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 3 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 9 April 2018. It is alleged that you are guilty of conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a teacher by the Chenderit School between May 2001 and May 2017: 1. You engaged in inappropriate use of the internet and/or electronic devices on one or more occasions between 2007 and 2017 in that you: a. Set up a profile on a website using an email address containing the name of a pupil; b. Posted photos of children onto a website without the knowledge and/or permission of: i. Their parents; ii. The School. 2. You knew or ought to have known in respect of your conduct at allegation 1 that the website was one which was frequented by individuals with a sexual interest in children. Mr Birkett admits each and every allegation. This is evidenced in the Statement of Agreed Facts which is signed by Mr Birkett on 15 November 2017 and his representations of the same date. There were no preliminary applications C. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list– pages 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response and Notice of Meeting– pages 5 to 11d Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 13 to 18 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 20 - 141 4 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 143 - 144 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses No witness evidence was heard by the panel. D. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case before it and has reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. On 21 May 2001 Mr Birkett commenced his employment with the School as a history teacher. At the time that these allegations came to light he was head of the History Department. On 2 November 2016 the School's headteacher was contacted by Northamptonshire Police in relation to an investigation into Mr Birkett arising from pictures he had posted on a Russian website. Mr Birkett was suspended pending the conclusion of the investigation. Although no further action was taken by the Police as no criminal offence had been committed the investigation revealed that: a. Mr Birkett had set up an account on a Russian website using an email address containing Pupil A's name; b. The website is a photograph sharing website which is legitimate but is known to be frequented by paedophiles; c. He posted photographs of Individual A’s children (Pupils X and Z) on the site and that these photographs had been obtained from Facebook. He had done this without obtaining consent from either the parents or the School. The images were not sexual or indecent. In March 2017 the School commenced its own disciplinary action which was based upon the Police investigation. However, on 25 May 2017, prior to the conclusion of the disciplinary process, Mr Birkett resigned. 5 Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations proved, for these reasons: The panel has considered each of the particulars of allegation separately. All of the particulars are admitted by the teacher in a signed statement of agreed facts which he signed on 15 November 2017 and within the statement of the same date in which he states, "I do not dispute the facts of the case and I recognise I fell short of the standards expected of me to remain a member of the profession." In relation to allegation 1a: this was admitted by Mr Birkett during his investigatory interview with the School; the police found that an email address had been set up using Pupil A's name which was linked to Mr Birkett's own personal email account and it has been admitted, as set out above. With regard to allegation 1b i and ii: this was also admitted during the investigatory interview with the School; the pictures were obtained as part of the police investigation; the police investigation revealed that neither the parents nor the School had provided permission for the photographs to be used and it has been admitted, as set out above. Allegation 2, has been admitted by way of the statement of facts, specifically at paragraph 14 where it sets out that he admits that .."he knew or ought to have known that the website was one which was frequented by individuals with a sexual interest in children, and that he was aware of this before posting images to the website." This is supported by: the police summary regarding the nature and use of the website as being one which, whilst legitimate, is frequented by paedophiles and used to source their material; the length of time (since 2007) he had been registered on the website and the names given to the folders ("Cute [girl's name] 3/4 yo, Little Cuties, Cute [girl's name] 8yo"). From this, the panel concludes as is admitted, that Mr Birkett had actual, rather than constructive, knowledge. The panel considers that the admissions that have been made are clear and unequivocal. Moreover, the panel carefully considered the evidence in the bundle and concludes that the evidence corroborates each of the matters alleged. Findings as to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the particulars of allegation to have been proved, the panel has gone on to consider whether the facts proved amounts to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 6 In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”. The panel has taken into account that this stage carries no burden of proof and has exercised its own professional judgement. The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Birkett in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by reference to Part Two, Mr Birkett is in breach of the following standards: "A teacher is expected to demonstrate consistently high standards of personal and professional conduct.  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." Moreover, the panel concludes that Mr Birkett's actions were in breach of the School's Acceptable Use Policy including:  "All schools based employees must take respnsibility for their own use of technologies and the internet, making sure that they are used legally, safely and responsibly:  All school based employees must ensure that all electronic communication with…others is compatible with their professional role and in line with school protocols." Further, the panel considers that his actions were also in breach of the School's Staff Code of Conduct, in that [staff]:  "Have a duty to keep pupils safe, promote their welfare and to protect them from sexual, physical and emotional harm;  are expected to make responsible and informed judgements about your own behaviour in order to secure the best interests and welfare of the pupils for which that individual is responsible." The panel has taken into account the factors listed at page eight of the Advice and concludes that Mr Birkett's actions in uploading photographs of children to a website that he knew was frequented by people with a sexual interest in children, is a gravely serious matter and is conduct which brings the profession into disrepute. 7 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 com