Mr Stuart Blan

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 Stuart Blan

Teacher reference number: 9036640

Teacher's date of birth: 07 June 1969

Location teacher worked: south west, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 August 2022 to 18 August 2022

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 Stuart Blan , formerly employed in south 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 Stuart Blan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stuart Blan Teacher ref number: 9036640 Teacher date of birth: 7 June 1969 TRA reference: 17788 Date of determination: 17 August 2022 Former employer: Clifton College, Bristol (1994-2000 and 2004), Canford College (2000-2003), British School Al Khubairat (2007-2017) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 16 August 2022 remotely via Microsoft TEAMS to consider the case of Mr Blan. The panel members were Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist) and Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ben Bentley of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Blan 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 16 May 2022. It was alleged that Mr Blan was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that between 2004-2007: 1. Whilst employed as a teacher at Clifton College he failed to maintain a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position in that in the academic year 2004/2005 he had sexual relations with Pupil E. 2. Whilst employed as a teacher at Canford College he failed to treat pupils with dignity in that he used intimidatory behaviour and language in his role as a teacher. 3. In or before April 2007, he did not disclose to the British School Al Khubairat (‘BSAK’) that he had been a teacher at Clifton College in 2004. 4. His conduct as may be found proven in relation to Allegation 1 was sexually motivated. 5. His conduct as may be found proven in relation to Allegation 3 lacked integrity. The panel was provided with a statement of agreed and disputed facts, within which Mr Blan admitted allegations 2, 3 and 5. Mr Blan did not accept allegations 1 and 4. In respect of the admitted facts, Mr Blan accepted these amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications The panel first considered an application by the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Blan. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases including GMC v Adeogba [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2018. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Blan's absence. Mr Blan had been represented in respect of the preparation of his response to the allegations, including a statement of agreed and disputed facts that had been provided to the panel. There was written confirmation that Mr Blan was aware of the hearing and was content for it to 5 proceed in his absence. The panel determined that it should proceed in the absence of Mr Blan, for the following reasons: • Mr Blan had not sought an adjournment on medical or any other grounds. • The panel was satisfied that given Mr Blan's response to the Notice, his absence was voluntary, and he had waived his right to attend. • There was no indication that Mr Blan might attend at a future date and an adjournment would be unlikely to result in his attendance at a later date. • The panel was conscious that the witness had made arrangements and was ready to attend the hearing to provide their oral evidence. • There is a strong public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable timeframe. The panel heard an application for additional documents to be admitted. These comprised of Mr Blan's witness statement with exhibits, a medical letter and a signed statement of agreed and disputed facts. This application was not opposed. The panel heard and accepted legal advice on this application. The panel determined that the documents were relevant to the issues it had to determine, and it was in the interests of a fair hearing for the documents to be admitted. Finally, the panel also considered an application on behalf of Mr Blan for certain aspects to be heard in private. The TRA took a neutral stance. The panel considered and accepted legal advice on this matter. In the panel's view, there is a public interest in disciplinary proceedings being transparent but agreed that any aspects relating to Mr Blan's health would be heard in private and that should the press request any documents in relation to this matter, those aspects relating to health and details of any family names should be redacted. The panel also directed that any references to Pupil E's identity in the papers should be redacted. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – pages 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of proceedings – pages 5 to 8 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 10 to 16 6 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 18 to 81 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 83 to 93 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Witness statement of Stuart Blan with exhibits, 10 August 2022 [pages 94 to 136] • Medical letter, 11 January 2022 [page 137] • Statement of agreed and disputed facts, 15 August 2022 [pages 138 to 143] The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Pupil E, who was called by the TRA. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: Insofar as is relevant to the allegations; Mr Stuart Blan began teaching in 1994. He was employed at Clifton College ("the School") between 1994 to 2000 as a Science Teacher and thereafter an Assistant Housemaster. Mr Blan thereafter was employed at Canford College between 2000 and 2003 as a Physics Teacher and Hockey Coach. Mr Blan was re-employed at the School between September and November 2004. He was employed as a Physics Teacher and Head of Year from 1 September 2007 to 13 December 2017 at the British School Al Khubairat (‘BSAK’). Whilst Mr Blan was employed at Canford College, allegations came to light that he had behaved inappropriately towards pupils and used intimidatory language. An investigation was conducted, and Mr Blan admitted to these allegations. Mr Blan resigned from his position as part of a mutual agreement with Canford College. Whilst Mr Blan was employed at BSAK, in or around November 2017, allegations came to light that Mr Blan had formed a relationship with a former pupil (Pupil E) at the School in or around 2004 to 2005. BSAK were unaware that Mr. Blan had been re-employed by the School during 2004. A formal investigation was triggered whereby the allegations of an inappropriate relationship with Pupil E and Mr Blan’s dishonesty in his employment chronology were considered. BSAK determined that Mr Blan had been dishonest about his employment chronology when applying for his position. Mr Blan resigned from his role at BSAK in 2017. 7 As part of BSAK’s investigation, they contacted the School to confirm Mr Blan’s dates of employment and investigate the allegations of an inappropriate relationship. This triggered a formal investigation by the School into the historical allegations of an inappropriate relationship with Pupil E during the academic year 2004 to 2005. The School determined that there was insufficient evidence to pursue the allegations against Mr Blan further. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Whilst employed as a teacher at Clifton College you failed to maintain a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position in that in the academic year 2004/2005 you had sexual relations with Pupil E. The panel heard evidence from Pupil E. The panel considered her evidence to be measured and candid. The panel was mindful that the events occurred many years ago, which may have impacted her memory and she readily accepted when her memory was not precise. The panel considered that Pupil E did not embellish matters and was able to describe how the relationship with Mr Blan had developed. Pupil E explained how she first met Mr Blan in September 2004, when he became a House Parent at Oakley House (at the School), where she was a [redacted]. She explained that extra [redacted] training sessions were offered by Mr Blan during the first term and these quickly turned in to one to one session, on at least a weekly basis. She explained that during these sessions there was "flirtation", which she said included touching during training that she had not experienced with other coaches previously. Pupil E explained that Mr Blan had offered her driving practice. On one occasion during that first term at the