Mr Terence McHenry

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 Terence McHenry

Teacher reference number: 0845838

Teacher's date of birth: 27 July 1969

Location teacher worked: Thornbury, south west England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 to 17 November 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 Terence McHenry, formerly employed in Thornbury, 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 Terence McHenry: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Terence McHenry Teacher ref number: 0845838 Teacher date of birth: 27 July 1969 TRA reference: 18806 Date of determination: 17 November 2022 Former employer: Sheiling School, Thornbury Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 16 to 17 November by way of a virtual hearing to consider the case of Mr Terence McHenry. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Juliet Berry (lay panellist) and Ms Bev Williams (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Sam Haldane of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Ben Bentley of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr McHenry was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 5 August 2022. It was alleged that Mr McHenry was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1) On one or more occasions he provided false and/or misleading information, and/or failed to disclose relevant information regarding his previous medical history and/or issues with alcohol, namely; a. when completing a Pre-Employment Medical Questionnaire dated 16 October 2010 in respect of his employment at King’s College, Taunton; b. during the course of a disciplinary investigation in or around February 2015 whilst employed at King’s College, Taunton; c. when completing a Pre-Employment Medical Questionnaire dated 24 October 2018 in respect of his employment at Sheiling School, Thornbury; d. during the course of a disciplinary investigation in or around September 2019 whilst employed at Sheiling School, Thornbury. 2) His conduct as may be found proven at 1a and/or 1b and/or 1c and/or 1d above a. lacked integrity; b. was dishonest. 3) Attended for work when he was unfit to do so and/or were under the influence of alcohol on one or more occasions, namely; a. on or around 11 February 2015 whilst employed at King’s College, Taunton; b. on or around 30 August 2019 whilst employed at Shelling School, Thornbury. 4) Sent one or more inappropriate and/or threatening text messages whilst employed at Sheiling School, Thornbury, in that he; a. sent a text message to Pupil A’s mother on or around 6 August 2019, in which he stated ‘tell him I will kill him’, when referring to Pupil A; b. sent one or more messages to the Headteacher, including: 5 i. a message on or around 9 August 2019 in which he stated ‘If anyone tried to get into my home, it is a declaration of war. And you don’t threaten the McHenry family’; ii. a message on or around 16 August 2019 in which he stated ‘But I am becoming angry with his attitude. You won’t like me when I am angry’ and ‘ But do not bullshit me’. Mr McHenry did not provide a response to the notice of referral, however he did make a number of admissions in an undated letter to the TRA, attached to an email dated 15 July 2022. The presenting officer confirmed he would be withdrawing allegation 1(d), and the panel did not therefore consider this allegation or make a determination in respect of it. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr McHenry was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr McHenry. 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, particularly GMC v Adeogba). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr McHenry in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel concluded that Mr McHenry’s absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted an email from Mr McHenry which stated that he was unable to attend the hearing due to his [REDACTED]. The panel noted that Mr McHenry had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr McHenry was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings wer e as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr McHenry was neither present nor represented. 6 Part of the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered that part of the hearing relating to medical history should be heard in private. It is noted that there was no formal application from either Mr McHenry or the Presenting Officer. The presenting officer did not have an objection to this. The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ were published in May 2020 (the ‘May 2020 Procedures’). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the ‘Teacher misconduct: disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession’ updated in April 2018 (the ‘April 2018 Procedures’) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 18 • Section 2: TRA witness statements – pages 20 to 160 • Section 3: TRA documents – pages 162 to 226 • Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 229 to 240 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: - Emails between Terence McHenry and TRA 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 the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A, [REDACTED] 7 • Witness B, [REDACTED] • Witness C, [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr McHenry was a class teacher at Sheiling School (‘the School’) from 1 November 2018. Mr McHenry was previously an assistant teacher at the School. Mr McHenry lived on site. On 27 July 2019, Mr McHenry allegedly slipped over in Tesco and cut his hand, requiring a hospital visit. This was witnessed and reported by a member of staff at the School, who expressed their concern that the accident had been caused by Mr McHenry being under the influence of alcohol. Mr McHenry made an allegation against the member of staff, and was invited to give a witness statement. Mr McHenry was allegedly under the influence of alcohol at the time of the meeting; he was advised that he needed to sober up in order to give a reliable witness statement. Mr McHenry subsequently withdrew his allegation. In the meantime, the School’s maintenance team were concerned that the fire alarm kept getting set off and believed it may be due to Mr McHenry’s activity in his on-site flat. Maintenance staff tried unsuccessfully for a week to gain Mr McHenry’s permission to gain access to the flat; Mr McHenry’s text messages to the maintenance team and the head teacher started to sound threatening. Mr McHenry was given a notice to vacate his on-site flat. This was as a result of the concerns that he had been under the influence of alcohol since at least 27 July 2019. Mr McHenry was offered support and advice throughout the summer holiday from a number of managers at the School. He turned down offers to contact the Schools employee assistance programme and chose not to take up support offered. Mr McHenry was allegedly witnessed by the [REDACTED] being under the influence of alcohol at work during the staff prep week and was suspended on full pay. On checking text messages on Mr McHenry’s work phone on 20 August, the [REDACTED] became aware of an inappropriate message to a pupils mother on 6 August 2019. Mr McHenry was dismissed from his role at the School for gross misconduct on 3 September 2019. During Mr McHenry’s disciplinary meeting, he admitted that he was under the influence of alcohol whilst on site whilst working and he stated that he had lied on his application form and did not mention that he had [REDACTED]. 8 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these