Mr Thomas Page (also known as Mr Thomas Watson)

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 Page (also known as Mr Thomas Watson)

Teacher reference number: 1052207

Teacher's date of birth: 28 April 1987

Location teacher worked: Gravesend, South East England

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 Thomas Page (also known as Mr Thomas Watson) formerly employed in Gravesend, South East 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 Page (also known as Mr Thomas Watson): Professional conduct panel 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 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Thomas Page (also known as Mr Thomas Watson) Teacher ref number: 1052207 Teacher date of birth: 28 April 1987 TRA reference: 20143 Date of determination: 7 January 2025 Former employer: Whitehill Primary School & Nursery, Gravesend, Kent Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 7 January 2025, by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Thomas Page. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (Teacher Panellist – in the Chair), Mrs Melissa West (Teacher Panellist) and Ms Hannah Fellows (Lay Panellist). The Legal Adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The Presenting Officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Thomas Page 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 12 October 2023. It was alleged that Mr Thomas Page had been convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On 1 August 2022, he was convicted of (a) Attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child contrary to section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; 2. 3 counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. In the absence of any response from Mr Page, the allegations were treated as not admitted. Preliminary applications As to whether the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Page Mr Page was not present and not represented. After hearing submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the panel determined that the hearing should proceed in the absence of Mr Page for the following reasons: • The panel noted that an email was sent to Mr Page by Kingsley Napley on 12 August 2024, which was accompanied by a letter regarding the TRA’s investigation. The email asked for confirmation that the email address was correct and that Mr Page was happy for the email address to be used in future correspondence. A response to the email was sent the same day in which the author confirmed the email address. • Further emails were sent by Kingsley Napley on 12 August 2024, 21 August 2024, 17 September 2024 and 2 October 2024 in which Mr Page was asked to confirm his postal address. Mr Page responded by email dated 3 October 2024 in which he provided his postal address. • The Notice of Hearing was sent to Mr Page on 24 September 2024 by special delivery to his postal address and by email. The records of attempted delivery by Royal Mail indicated that the Notice had not been delivered by post as Mr Page had not called for it. The panel also noted that, in addition to the Notice of Hearing being sent by email on 24 September 2024, a further email with the full hearing bundle was sent to Mr Page by password protected email on 3 October 2024 and via the document portal known as ‘BOX’. Further emails were sent to Mr Page on 5 28 October 2024 and 21 November 2024. Mr Page was then reminded that he should access the electronic copy of the bundle sent to him by BOX. • Taking all of the above information into account, the panel was satisfied that the Notice of Hearing had been sent to Mr Page in accordance with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020. • The panel was also satisfied by the correspondence and exchange of emails presented that Mr Page was aware of the hearing and had decided not to participate. The panel concluded that he had voluntarily waived his right to participate. • There was no application by or on behalf of Mr Page for an adjournment and there was no indication that Mr Page would attend the hearing at a later date if the hearing were to be adjourned. Accordingly, the panel was not satisfied that any purpose would be served by an adjournment. • There was also a public interest in regulatory proceedings concluding reasonably promptly. Amendment of allegations The panel amended the numbering of the allegations to ensure that the second limb linked to the overarching stem as shown below: It was alleged that you have been convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On 1 August 2022, you were convicted of: a) Attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child contrary to section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; b) 3 counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 12 6 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 13 to 97 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • A service bundle – pages 1 to 40 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. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses There were no witnesses. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered this case and reached a decision. Mr Thomas Page was employed as a teacher at Whitehill Primary School and Nursery from 1 September 2011. It was alleged that Mr Page was arrested on 6 May 2021 for attempting to engage in sexual communication with someone he believed to be a 13-year-old girl, but who was actually an undercover police officer. Following his arrest, his phone was seized. It was alleged that analysis of this phone revealed that Mr Page was part of a chat group through which indecent images of children had been downloaded to his phone. It was alleged that Mr Page appeared in the Crown Court at Maidstone on 1 August 2022, when he pleaded guilty to attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and three counts of making indecent images of a child. On 14 December 2023, he was sentenced for those offences. In determining the allegations in this case, the panel considered the certificate of conviction from the Crown Court at Maidstone. The panel accepted the legal advice that, provided the panel was satisfied that the certificate of conviction related to Mr Page, it should be treated as conclusive proof of the commission of the offences concerned. The panel also considered the transcript of the sentencing hearing in the Crown Court. 7 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that you have been convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On 1 August 2022, you were convicted of: a) Attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child contrary to section 15A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; b) 3 counts of making indecent photographs or pseudo photographs of children contrary to section 1(1) (a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel was presented with a certificate of conviction from the Crown Court at Maidstone. This stated that Mr Thomas Watson was convicted on 1 August 2022 of the following offences: • attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child; • making indecent photographs of a child (35 category A images); • making indecent photographs of a child (17 category B images); • making indecent photographs of a child (77 category C images). The certificate also confirmed that the sentence imposed by the Court on 14 December 2023 was an effective total of eight months imprisonment suspended for two years with a Rehabilitation Activity Requirement of 30 days, 150 hours of unpaid work and participation in the Horizon accredited programme for sex offenders. He was also required to sign onto the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years and made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for the same period. The panel was satisfied that the certificate of conviction related to Mr Thomas Page, despite being in the name of Thomas Watson. Correspondence from the Court Clerk at Maidstone Combined Court stated that the case had been sent to the Crown Court by the Magistrates’ Court on 2 July 2022 with the defendant’s surname as ‘Page’, but the subsequent indictment referred to the defendant by the surname ‘Watson’. In an email dated 3 October 2024, Mr Page said he had changed his surname to Watson. Attached to this email was a notice of transfer of fine from Maidstone Crown Court. This document referred to the sentence on 14 December 2023, an address at which Mr Page is known and his date of birth. In addition, the certificate of conviction corresponded with his date of birth, as did the PNC print-out which also confirmed the surname ‘Watson’ as an alias. 8 The panel, therefore, treated the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of commission of the alleged offences by Mr Thomas Page, otherwise known as Thomas Watson. Accordingly, the panel found allegations 1(a) and (b) proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found