Mr Terence Dykes

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 Dykes

Teacher reference number: 18975

Teacher's date of birth: 23 November 1971

Location teacher worked: Liverpool, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 September 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 Dykes, formerly employed in Liverpool, 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 Terence Dykes: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Terence Dykes Teacher ref number: N/A Teacher date of birth: 23 November 1971 TRA reference: 18950 Date of determination: 22 September 2022 Former employer: Ernest Cookson School ("the school"), Liverpool Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened remotely on 21 September 2022 via Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Dykes The panel members were Dr Zubair Hanslot (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Michelle Chappell (teacher panellist) and Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Dykes 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 7 July 2022. It was alleged that Mr Dykes was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into, in that whilst employed at Ernest Cookson School, he: 1. Engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A in that he a. Exchanged messages with him via his personal phone in which he: i. told Pupil A he missed him; ii. told Pupil A “I wanted to take you with us away for the Easter break”; iii. made reference to his private / personal life; iv. encouraged him to send him one or more messages via ‘WhatsApp’; b. Met up with him on one or more occasions during school holidays and/or weekends and did so: i. without ensuring that he had parental consent; ii. without notifying or seeking approval from senior colleagues / the school; c. Bought things for Pupil A on one or more occasions, namely: i. a football shirt; ii. one or more meals. Mr Dykes has not responded to the allegations. He has made no admissions to the factual allegations, and no admissions of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to admit additional documents demonstrating the attempts made by the TRA to engage with Mr Dykes in advance of the hearing. The panel determined that it was in the interests of justice for it to receive those additional documents. 5 The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of Mr Dykes. 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; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession April 2018 ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. The panel also noted other correspondence to Mr Dykes, and was satisfied that reasonable efforts had been made to bring the hearing to his attention. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Dykes's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mr Dykes is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. On balance, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Dykes for the following reasons: • Mr Dykes had not sought an adjournment. • There was no medical evidence before the panel which indicated that he was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-health. • The panel was satisfied that his absence was voluntary and he had waived his right to attend. • Given Mr Dykes' non-engagement, there was no indication that he might attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time. • There is a burden on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator. • There are witnesses present to give evidence to the panel who would be significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. 6 • The risk of reaching the wrong conclusion and the disadvantage to Mr Dykes in not being present were mitigated by the fact that the panel has in evidence an account he gave during previous investigations. It will be able to test the evidence by asking questions of the witnesses called by the TRA. Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Dykes is neither present nor represented. The panel considered an application from the presenting officer that those parts of the hearing which involved discussion of [REDACTED] or Pupil A should be held in private. It decided that it was in the public interest for these limited parts of the hearing to be held in private. The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to amend the wording of particular 1c of the allegation, so that it read "Bought things for and/or gave things to Pupil A on one or more occasions" (proposed additional words in italics). The presenting officer submitted that this did not materially change the substance of the allegation. She confirmed that Mr Dykes had not been given notice of this proposed amendment, or of any further evidence that might be called to support it. The panel had regard to Rule 4.57 of the Procedures, and received legal advice before making its decision. It concluded that it would not be in the interests of justice to allow the presenting officer's application to amend the allegation. While Mr Dykes had waived his right to attend the hearing, and by doing so, waived his right to address things arising during the course of the hearing, the panel could see no good reason why notice of the application (and any further evidence in support of it) had not been given to Mr Dykes in advance of the hearing. Although Mr Dykes had not formally responded to the current allegation, the panel could not be confident that he would not have responded had he been given notice of the proposed amendment. The panel was satisfied that the allegation as worded enabled it to properly consider and make findings on the case which would satisfy the public interest. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 23 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 25 to 125 7 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 127 to 211 Section 5: Teacher documents – none In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Late evidence bundle pages 1 to 12 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing, that they had read the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from • Individual A, [REDACTED] • Individual B, [REDACTED] • Individual C, [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: Mr Dykes was an experienced unqualified teacher who had worked at the school since 1997 teaching art and craft. The school is a primary special school for children with social, emotional and mental health difficulties. Pupil A was [REDACTED]. In June 2019, [REDACTED] raised concerns that Mr Dykes had taken Pupil A on unsupervised outings. [REDACTED] spoke to the school and to Merseyside Police, and produced a mobile phone on which there were text messages between Mr Dykes and Pupil A. Individual C from [REDACTED] spoke to Pupil A, who said that Mr Dykes had taken him on outings, bought him food while they were out, and given him a football shirt. He also confirmed he had exchanged text messages with Mr Dykes. 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: 8 1. You engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A in that you; a. Exchanged messages with him via your personal phone in which you: i. told Pupil A you missed him; ii. told Pupil A “I wanted to take you with us away for the Easter break”; iii. made reference to your private / personal life; iv. encouraged him to send you one or more messages via ‘WhatsApp’; The bundle contained copies of text messages which were exchanged between Mr Dykes and Pupil A. The panel was satisfied that the number from which Mr Dykes se