Mr Steven Jackson

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 Steven Jackson

Teacher reference number: 0146378

Teacher's date of birth: 30 August 1970

Location teacher worked: Wirral, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 July 2024 to 17 July 2024

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 Steven Jackson formerly employed in Wirral, North West 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 Steven Jackson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Steven Jackson Teacher ref number: 0146378 Teacher date of birth: 30 August 1970 TRA reference: 19163 Date of determination: 17 July 2024 Former employer: Upton Hall School, Birkenhead, Wirral Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 15 to 17 July 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Steven Jackson. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist) and Ms Olivia Kong (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louise Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Steven Jackson was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 2 May 2024. It was alleged that Mr Steven Jackson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as a teacher at Upton Hall School (“the School”) he: 1. On one or more occasions, [REDACTED], when Pupil B was a student at the School, and/or between [REDACTED], after Pupil B had left the School, he a. drank alcohol with Pupil B; b. met and/or invited Pupil B to meet outside of school hours; c. visited Pupil B’s house; d. added Pupil B as a ‘friend’ on Facebook; e. contacted Pupil B: i using his personal contact details; ii via social media; iii outside of school hours; f. inappropriately touched Pupil B by: i placing his hands on Pupil B’s legs; ii rubbing Pupil B’s legs; iii hugging her; 2. On one or more occasions, [REDACTED], when Pupil A was a student at the School, [REDACTED], after Pupil A had left the School, he: a. made a comment to Pupil A as detailed in Schedule 1, or words to that effect; b. told Pupil A that he was going to miss her, or words to that effect; c. hugged Pupil A; d. gave his personal contact details to Pupil A; e. contacted Pupil A: 5 i using his personal contact details; ii outside of school hours; f. sent text messages to Pupil A of an inappropriate and/or sexual nature; g. invited and/or met Pupil A to meet outside of school hours; h. had dinner and/or drank alcohol with Pupil A; i. offered to pay for Pupil A’s taxi so she could visit him; j. engaged in any or all of the conduct detailed in Schedule 2. 3. His conduct at paragraph 1 and/or 2 above was: a. a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries; b. sexually motivated. Mr Jackson did not make a formal response to the Notice of Proceedings. However, in an email dated 14 June 2024, Mr Jackson said that he admitted all the allegations against him except that he did not admit that he had inappropriately touched and propositioned Pupil B. The presenting officer submitted that it appeared from Mr Jackson’s response that he did not admit allegation 1(f) or 3b (to the extent that allegation 3b related to Pupil B). However, in the absence of formal admissions from Mr Jackson to each allegation, Ms Atkin submitted that the hearing should proceed as a disputed case and that the panel should consider Mr Jackson’s informal admissions in the context of the other evidence in deciding whether the factual allegations had been proved. The panel agreed to proceed on this basis. Mr Jackson made no reference in his email to his position in relation to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Accordingly, the panel treated unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute as not admitted. 6 Preliminary applications Proceeding in the absence of Mr Jackson Ms Atkin made an application for the hearing to proceed in the absence of Mr Jackson. After hearing submissions from Ms Atkin and receiving legal advice, the panel made the following determination. The panel determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Jackson for the following reasons: • the Notice of Proceedings was sent to Mr Jackson in accordance with the requirements of Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018; • in an email dated 14 June 2024, Mr Jackson confirmed that he would not be attending the hearing. The panel was satisfied that Mr Jackson had voluntarily waived his right to participate; • there was no application for an adjournment and no purpose would be served by adjournment; • there was a public interest in regulatory proceedings taking place reasonably promptly; • the panel also had regard to the interests of witnesses called by the TRA, including a vulnerable witness. Application for special measures in relation to Pupil A Ms Atkin made an application for special measures to be adopted to safeguard the interests of Pupil A, who was a vulnerable witness because of the nature of the allegations against Mr Jackson. After hearing submissions from Ms Atkin and receiving legal advice, the panel agreed that: • Pupil A should be permitted to give evidence accompanied by a witness supporter provided the proposed witness supporter is aged 18 or over; • Any questions from the panel would be asked by a female panellist, Mrs Shabana Robertson; The panel considered a request that there should be no break in the hearing between questions from Ms Atkin and Mrs Robertson on behalf of the panel. However, the panel 7 felt that it would be necessary for there to be a short break to ensure that any questions that other panel members might wish to be asked are asked by Mrs Robertson. As to a request that Pupil A should give the whole of her evidence in private, the panel recognised that there was a presumption that hearings should take place in public. The panel determined that Pupil A’s evidence should be given in public, but that the panel would go into private session to hear any evidence relating to matters [REDACTED]. Ms Atkin also requested that, should Mr Jackson attend the hearing, his camera should be switched off during Pupil A’s evidence. The panel declined to make any direction to that effect at that stage. Mr Jackson had not attended the first day of the hearing. In the event of him attending on a subsequent day, the panel would revisit any arrangements for his participation in the hearing. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 41 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 42 to 63 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 64 to 413 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 414 to 417 Also in advance of the hearing, the panel received an additional bundle entitled ‘service/ proceeding in absence’ which included: Section 1: Referral form – pages 2 to 16 Section 2: Notice of Referral (original) including response form and correspondence request form – pages 17 to 27 Section 3: Trace report – pages 28 to 29 Section 4: Notice of Proceedings – pages 30 to 42 Section 5: Emails sending Notice of Proceedings and draft bundle to the Teacher – pages 43 to 44 Section 6: Royal Mail Delivery Confirmation – pages 45 to 47 8 Section 7: Email from Teacher confirming that he will not be attending – 48 to 51 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundles, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A and Pupil A, [REDACTED]. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered this case and reached a decision. Upton Hall School, Birkenhead (“the School”) is an all-girls Catholic Grammar School for students aged 11 to 18. Mr Steven Jackson commenced his employment at the School in 2011 as a Teacher of English. In 2013, he became Head of English. He had responsibility for A-Level and Key Stage 4 English. [REDACTED], the School received an anonymous letter addressed to Witness A. The letter described Mr Jackson having an inappropriate relationship with a student shortly after they left School. The letter also described seeing and hearing Mr Jackson’s interactions with another student who had left the School [REDACTED]. It was alleged that Mr Jackson had sent messages to this student and was having a sexual relationship with her. The panel noted that it was subsequently established that that the anonymous letter had been written by Pupil B’s [REDACTED]. On receipt of this letter, Witness A met with Mr Jackson when the concerns raised in the letter were put to him. Mr Jackson denied any knowledge of the concerns raised. Pupil A had been a pupil at the School and had completed her A-Levels [REDACTED]. [REDACTED], Pupil A contacted the [REDACTED] School and asked to speak to her about an allegation relating to a member of staff. When Pupil A met with [REDACTED] she report