Mr Stuart Maxwell

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 Maxwell

Teacher reference number: 9663565

Teacher's date of birth: 21 November 1969

Location teacher worked: Ripley, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 7 January 2025

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 Maxwell, formerly employed in Ripley, East Midlands.

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 Maxwell: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 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 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stuart Maxwell Teacher ref number: 9663565 Teacher date of birth: 21 November 1969 TRA reference: 22371 Date of determination: 7 January 2025 Former employer: The Ripley Academy, Derbyshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 7 January 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Stuart Maxwell. The panel members were Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist), Ms Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist - in the chair) and Ms Sarah Daniel (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rebecca Utton of Birketts LLP 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 Maxwell that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Maxwell provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted being convicted of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Jack Ashford of Capsticks LLP, Mr Maxwell or any representative for Mr Maxwell. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 23 October 2024. It was alleged that Mr Maxwell was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 26 June, you were convicted of, ‘On 20/1/2022 at Sawley assaulted [Child A] by beating him ‘contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988’. Mr Maxwell admitted the facts of allegation 1 and that his behaviour amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence as set out in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Maxwell on 16 August 2024. 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 4 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 5 to 35 • Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 36 to 40 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 41 to 87 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 88 to 90 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 Maxwell on 16 August 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 13 September 2024. 5 Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Maxwell 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 determined that such a direction was not necessary or appropriate in this case. On the 20 December 2022, there was an incident involving Mr Maxwell and a minor. On the 1 January 2023, Mr Maxwell commenced employment at The Ripley Academy (‘the Academy’). On the 26 June 2023, Mr Maxwell was convicted of assault by beating. On the 1 August 2023, the TRA received a referral of concerns about Mr Maxwell from the Academy. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 26 June, you were convicted of, ‘On 20/1/2022 at SAWLEY assaulted [Child A] by beating him ‘contrary to section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988’. The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Maxwell on the 16 August 2024. In that statement of agreed facts, Mr Maxwell admitted allegation 1, and further admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the memorandum of conviction from Derby Justice Centre (aka Derby St Mary Adult) Magistrates’ Court, dated 26 June 2023, which 6 detailed that Mr Maxwell had been convicted of assaulting Child A by beating him. The panel noted that Mr Maxwell pleaded guilty to the offence. In respect of the allegation, Mr Maxwell was sentenced to pay a fine in the sum of £120, £100 compensation, £85 prosecution costs and a £48 victim surcharge. On examination of the documents before the panel and the admissions in the signed statement of agreed facts, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to the 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 Maxwell in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Maxwell 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 showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Maxwell fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel noted that Mr Maxwell’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting. Whilst the panel recognised that the offence had taken place outside of the school setting, outside of school hours and had not involved pupils or other members of the Academy’s staff, the panel noted that the offence did involve a child of school age at a school where Mr Maxwell had taught. The panel considered that the conviction had involved violence and noted the Advice states that offences involving violence are likely to be considered a relevant offence. However, the panel did acknowledge that the level of sentence imposed by the court upon Mr Maxwell, a fine, was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. 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 noted that although Mr Maxwell acted in the heat of the moment, he essentially took the law into his own hands and responded inappropriately to a situation where, on his account, he was 7 being provoked by a child. The panel considered that Mr Maxwell had a duty to act as a role model. In that regard, the panel was of the opinion that his actions fell short of the standard of behaviour expected by a teacher. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Maxwell’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. His conduct ran counter to what should have been at the centre of his practice as a teacher with a duty of care towards children. The panel further noted that in the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Maxwell, he admitted the facts amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Notwithstanding his admission, the panel, having considered all the evidence before it, was satisfied that Mr Maxwell had been convicted of a relevant offence. 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 a 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