Mr Thomas Edney

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 Thomas Edney

Location teacher worked: Fleetwood, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 to 12 July 2024

Outcome type: No order made

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 Thomas Edney formerly employed in Fleetwood, 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 Thomas Edney: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 3 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 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 Thomas Allen Peter Edney TRA reference: 19977 Date of determination: 12 July 2024 Former employer: Rossall School, Fleetwood Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 to 12 July 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Thomas Edney. The panel members were Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Burton (lay panellist) and Ms Olivia Kong (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Edney was present and was represented by Ms Rosalind Emsley-Smith, instructed by Ward Hadaway LLP. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 26 April 2024 and as further amended (as set out in the below preliminary application): It was alleged that Mr Edney was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as the Assistant Director of Music at the Rossall School between September 2020 and March 2021; 1. He met with Pupil A on a one to one basis in a classroom on or around 14 March 2021, despite; a. being advised by the [REDACTED] not to be alone with Pupil A on or around 21 November 2020; 4 b. informing a member of staff he was going to the music department to tidy up and/or organise himself; 2. He failed to maintain appropriate and/or professional boundaries with one or more pupils, by; a. making one or more inappropriate comments by email to Pupil A to the effect of; i. “apparently asking to get cover on Sunday evening is rude” on or around 10 March 2021; ii. “I really hope he’s not a tory and is a liberal democrat because he’s too nice a person to be a tory” on or around 10 March 2021; iii. “there’s also no such thing as a good tory” on or around 10 March 2021; iv. “upset you’re not at dinner as I basically copied ur outfit just to make a point lmao” on or around 12 March 2021; v. “I care very much what certain people think but most people I do not care less” on or around 14 March 2021; vi. “could be worse and you could be part of the rossall massive in their sliders, greg tracksuits and casual classism / racism / homophobia / sexism / transphobia” on or around 14 March 2021; vii. “lol don’t panic they aren’t sacking me yet” on or around 14 March 2021; viii. “I think I deserve a medal for: 1) not punching homophobes in SE. 2) Not spontaneously combusting spending so much time next to a tory” on or around 14 March 2021; ix. “also doing some maths to calm down cos you’ve whipped me up into a giddy mood” on or around 15 March 2021; x. “why does Rossall hate the LGBTQ+ community” on or around 16 March 2021; b. making one or more inappropriate comments by email to Pupil B to the effect of; i. “I aint got no uterus” on or around 4 March 2021; ii. “all the boys in house are having a go at my music and I’m sat here like u r boring” on or around 5 March 2021; iii. “we can be friends once you leave school but like we are meant to be responsible for now” on or around 5 March 2021; 5 iv. “haha lad that is fkn mental absolute banta thooo pussy” on or around 5 March 2021; v. “I never get bored because I am a Rossalll slave cry” on or around 13 March 2021; vi. “need to tidy my flat and I just cannot be fucked and I am on duty and honestly this is just the worse” on or around 13 March 2021; vii. “if you do want me to piss off for bit tho that’s fine” on or around 13 March 2021; viii. “ok ive emailed him I just feel awful cos I only like a few people in the world and I hate upsetting them lol” on or around 13 March 2021; ix. “why didn’t he reply to me ffs” on or around 13 March 2021; x. “men are terrible we should not be allowed emotions” on or around 13 March 2021; xi. “I just saw your email about being a male and I just wanted you to know that am one of the gud guyz” on or around 16 March 2021; c. using emojis in correspondence; d. using terms of endearment such as ‘queen’; 3. His behaviour as may be found proven at; a. allegation 1b lacked integrity and/or was dishonest; b. allegation 2 demonstrated a lack of insight into previous advice provided by the [REDACTED] relating to communication and/or maintaining appropriate relationships with pupils on or around; i. 8 November 2020; ii. 21 November 2020; iii. 2 December 2020; c. Allegation 2aii and/or 2aiii demonstrated a lack of tolerance and/or respect for the rights and/or beliefs of others. Mr Edney denied allegation 1, admitted allegation 2, apart from 2(a)(iv), 2(a)(v), 2(a)(vii), 2(a)(ix), 2(a)(x), 2(b)(ii), 2(b)(iii), 2(b)(x) and 2(b)(xi). Allegation 3 was also denied. 6 In regards to the admitted allegations, Mr Edney did not accept they would amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that would bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Disputed documents Mr Perkins made an application to admit a number of documents into the evidence which was contested by Ms Emsley-Smith. Mr Perkins advised the panel that the three elements of documents were in relation to: 1) Evidence on a meeting between Mr Edney and Witness B on 17 March 2021; 2) Elements of Mr Edney’s response to the TRA earlier in the investigatory stages; 3) Evidence on a meeting between Mr Edney and Individual B on 7 February 2021. Mr Perkins submitted that it would be fair and relevant to admit this evidence. In regard to 1), Mr Perkins submitted that Witness B would be present to give evidence and could be fairly tested on her evidence in regards to the events on 17 March 2021, in which Mr Edney was present and his actions with Pupil A were discussed. In regard to 2) and 3), Mr Perkins highlighted that no unfairness would arise as it was Mr Edney’s own evidence and touched on various relevant aspects of the TRA’s case, which Mr Perkins may seek to question Mr Edney on. Ms Emsley-Smith opposed the application. In regards to 1), she submitted that the notes of the meeting had not been previously disclosed until the TRA proceedings and contained a level of gossip that was not relevant to the hearing. In regards to 3), Ms Emsley-Smith explained that the proposed exclusion was restricted to Mr Edney’s responses to the 7 February and 17 March meetings, should the underlying evidence of those meeting also be excluded. In regard to 2), Ms Emsley-Smith submitted that these elements were essentially contained in Mr Edney’s witness statement. The panel did not have the underlying disputed bundle before it when making its decision, but was satisfied it could make an informed decision on the information provided by the advocates. Whilst the panel may have been exposed to this material in a previous version of the bundle, the panel members had little recollection of the exact difference between the various bundle versions. The panel considered the evidence would be relevant to their determinations and in regards to fairness that as the material was either Mr Edney’s own material, or was other evidence which could properly be tested in the hearing, it would be fair to admit the disputed bundle. Accordingly, the panel granted the application. 7 Privacy Ms Emsley-Smith made an application for evidence relating to Mr Edney’s [REDACTED] to be heard in private. The application was not opposed by Mr Perkins. The panel considered this was a limited and discreet application on a legitimately considered area of the ‘private life’ of a party. In those circumstances, it was not contrary to the interests of justice to hear that evidence in private. The panel therefore granted the application. Late Document Ms Emsley-Smith made an application to admit a document outside the standard disclosure timetable. It was a supplemental witness statement from Mr Edney which addressed aspects of the messages he sent to Pupil A and Pupil B. Mr Perkins did not object to the application. The panel considered this evidence would be relevant to its determination and in the absence of any opposition, could not identify any material unfairness by admitting the statement. Accordingly, the panel granted the application. Amendment of the allegations Mr Perkins made an application to amend the allegations, namely; 1) Substitute “aint” for “anit” in allegation 2(b)(i); 2) Substitute “November” for “October” in allegation 3(b)(i). Mr Perkins submitted these were simply typographical errors in the allegations. The application was not opposed by Ms Emsley-Smith. The panel granted the application on the basis of the public interest in having accurately drafted allegations. Following the conclusion of the public element of the professional conduct panel hearing, the panel noted a further typographical error in the allegations. At Allegation 2(b)(x) the date was referred to as 13 March 2023. It was clear from the evidence before the panel and in the way that the parties had presented their cases that this date should have been 13 March 2021. The panel noted that the Disciplinary Procedures at paragraph 5.83 precluded the panel from amending the allegations after the findings of