Unknown Teacher

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions himself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher reference number:

7562763

Teacher's date of birth:

19 April 1956

Location teacher worked:

Clacton-on-Sea, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel:

16 July 2019

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 Timothy Richard Massey Moore, formerly employed in Clacton-on-Sea, East of England.

The proceedings were held at the Holiday Inn Coventry, Hinckley Road, Coventry, CV2 2HP at 9.30am on 16 July 2019.

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.

Timothy Richard Massey Moore: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2019 2 Contents A. Introduction 3 B. Allegations 4 C. Preliminary applications 5 D. Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 E. Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Timothy Richard Massey Moore Teacher ref number: 7562763 Teacher date of birth: 19 April 1956 TRA reference: 17632 Date of determination: 17 July 2019 Former employer: Clacton Coastal Academy, Clacton-on-Sea A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) convened on 16 July 2019 at the Holiday Inn Coventry, Hinckley Road, Coventry,CV2 2HP to consider the case of Timothy Richard Massey Moore (“Mr Moore”). The panel members were John Armstrong (lay panellist - in the chair), Alison Walsh (teacher panellist), and Michael Lewis (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Kara O’Neill of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the Agency was Helen Smith of DAC Beachcroft LLP solicitors. Mr Moore was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 20 May 2019. The particulars of the allegations as set out in the Notice of Proceedings, refer to the teacher in the third person. It was alleged that Mr Moore was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst a teacher at Clacton Coastal Academy (the “School”): 1. During the academic year 2016/2017 made comments to the following effect (a) “Don’t stop, glad we are comfortable together” to Pupil A as she was adjusting her bra. (b) “I would spank you but it would be a bit inappropriate” to Pupil A and/or Pupil B (c) “I would love to be in a detention with you three alone” to Pupil B (d) “You would love to be in a detention with me” to Pupil A (e) That you could or would “pull” Pupil D in the presence of Pupil A and/or Pupil B 2. You made physical contact (a) during the academic year 2016/2017 with Pupil A i) by putting your arm around her shoulders ii) by patting her in the area of her lower back (b) On or around 18 April 2018 with Pupil C by tickling her 3. By your conduct set out in all or any of the allegations contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 above, you failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position 4. your actions, as set out in all or any of these allegations above were sexually motivated In the absence of and non-response from the teacher, refer to the allegations being taken to have not been admitted. 5 C. Preliminary applications The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the Agency complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel decided to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel understood that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher had to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In making the decision, the panel noted that the teacher waived his right to participate in the hearing. The panel took account of the various factors drawn to their attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. The panel was satisfied that the Agency had discharged its statutory obligations regarding service of the notice of proceedings and that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Moore was aware of the proceedings. The panel noted that the Agency had made 10 individual attempts (via email and post) to contact Mr Moore and he had refused to accept service at every attempt, the last time being on 10 July 2019 when he had written on the unopened envelope “do not contact me again”. The panel therefore considered that the teacher voluntarily waived his right to be present at the hearing. The panel had regard to the requirement that it is only in rare and exceptional circumstances that a decision should be taken in favour of the hearing taking place. There was no indication that an adjournment might result in Mr Moore attending the hearing. The panel considered the extent of the disadvantage to the teacher in not being able to give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the evidence against him. The panel was able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel had regard to the seriousness of this case. The panel was aware of the potential consequences for the teacher and acknowledged that fairness to the teacher was of prime importance. The panel took account of the inconvenience an adjournment 6 would cause to the witnesses that were in attendance. In addition, the panel believed these are serious allegations and it was in the public interest to proceed with the hearing. D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 1 to 3 Section 2: Notice of proceedings – pages 4 to 11 Section 3: Agency documents – pages 12 to 222 Section 4: Agency documents contained in the Proof of Service Index of Papers - pages 1-49 Section 5: Teacher witness statements - none submitted Section 6: Teacher documents - none submitted The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the [REDACTED] of the School (at the relevant time) and the [REDACTED] of the School (at the relevant time), both called by the presenting officer. E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel confirmed that it had read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing. Mr Moore was employed as a humanities teacher at the School in April 2013. In March 2017, Mr Moore faced an investigation into allegations he had made inappropriate comments and had had inappropriate physical contact with pupils. In April 2017, the investigation resulted in a first and final written warning. In addition, Mr Moore accepted several restrictions regarding his conduct and work, and further safeguarding training. This outcome was agreed in writing with the School in the light of his acceptance of the allegations (the “Agreement”). 7 Mr Moore continued to teach until April 2018, when a further investigation commenced into a new allegation of inappropriate physical contact with a pupil. This investigation led to Mr Moore being summarily dismissed from the School on 3 July 2018. Findings of fact Our findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for these reasons: 1. During the academic year 2016/2017 made comments to the following effect a. “Don’t stop, glad we are comfortable together” to Pupil A as she was adjusting her bra. Having had regard to allegation 1 (a-e), the panel noted the wording of the allegation encompassed the phrase ‘comments to the following effect’. The panel cannot know for certain the precise words that were used but, from the written evidence before it, is confident that the tone and gist of the remarks attributed to Mr Moore was clear. The panel paid particular scrutiny to the evidence that was before it, placing appropriate weight on hearsay evidence as it was unable to test directly the pupils’ evidence. The panel considered oral evidence from the [REDACTED] that the pupils had been reluctant to alert the School to their concerns about Mr Moore’s conduct towards them in the first instance. The panel placed appropriate weight on this evidence. The panel firstly turned its mind to allegation 1a. The panel had regard to the witness statement of Pupil A in which she stated, ‘once I was sorting out my bra because it was hurting and I noticed Mr Moore staring. When I stopped he was like “oh no, don’t stop it don’t want you to feel uncomfortable”’. The panel noted that Pupil A’s account of events remained consistent over time and was repeated in a further statement she made to the police. During the School’s first investigation, Mr Moore, when questioned in regard to this comment, admitted, ‘I may have said something along those lines’. On the balance of probabilities, the panel found allegation 1a proven. b. “I would spank you but it would be a bit inappropriate” to Pupil A and/or Pupil B The panel considered the evidence given by Pupil A in which she stated, ‘then he started making really odd sexual innuendos (sic) like “I would spank you but it’d be a bit inappropriate”’. This account of events was consistent with the evidence of a witness statement given by Pupil B that, ‘he would make little sexual jok