Mr William Nuttycombe

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 William Nuttycombe

Teacher reference number: 8363754

Teacher's date of birth: 10 March 1959

Location teacher worked: Buckinghamshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 to 20 June 2023

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 William Nuttycombe, formerly employed in Buckinghamshire, 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 William Nuttycombe: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 7 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 8 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr William Nuttycombe Teacher ref number: 8363754 Teacher date of birth: 10 March 1959 TRA reference: 20044 Date of determination: 20 June 2023 Former employer: Aylesbury High School Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 19 – 20 June 2023 by virtual means to consider the case of Mr William Nuttycombe. The panel members were Mr Ronan Tyrer (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist) and Mrs Gemma Hutchinson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Shaun Moran of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Nuttycombe 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 6 April 2023. It was alleged that Mr Nuttycombe was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while employed as a teacher at Aylesbury High School: 1. Mr Nuttycombe uploaded inappropriate photographs and/or videos to one or more of the social media profiles or websites set out at Schedule 1: 2. One or more of those photographs and/or videos referred to at allegation 1 showed Mr Nuttycombe performing sexual acts on himself and/or others; 3. Mr Nuttycombe failed to ensure that any or all of those photographs and/or videos referred to in allegations 1 and/or 2 were not visible to pupils and/or parents. Schedule 1: • Instagram – in name of [REDACTED] • Instagram – using pseudonym [REDACTED] - [REDACTED] • Twitter – in name of [REDACTED] - [REDACTED] • ‘onlyfans.com’ – in name of [REDACTED] • ‘4myfans.com’ – in name of [REDACTED] • ‘justforfans.com’ – in name of [REDACTED] Mr Nuttycombe has not admitted either the alleged facts or that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to amend allegations 1. An application has been made by the presenting officer to amend the Notice of Proceedings by amending allegation 3 to include the word “in”. The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. 2. Before making an amendment, the panel is required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher, if present. 5 3. The pane l considered that the amendment proposed being a correction of a typographical error does not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. Despite the fact that the teacher was not present, there is no prospect of the teacher’s case being pr esented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegation as proposed. Application to admit late documents 1. The presenting officer has applied to admit a bundle of correspondence documents. Those documents were not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 5.35 of the Procedures, and as such the panel is required to decide whether those documents should be admitted under paragraph 5.34 of the Procedures at the discretion of the panel. The panel took into account the representations from the presenting officer to the admission of the documents. This application was heard prior to hearing any application on proceeding in the absence of the teacher. 2. Under paragraph 5.33 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. 3. The panel is satisfied that the documents are relevant to the case in so far as they set out the correspondence between the TRA’s representatives and the teacher. 4. With regard to the overall question of fairness, the panel’s attention was drawn to the fact that the correspondence bundle contained documents to which the teacher was party. Given the absence of the teacher at this stage, the panel considered whether he had received the document s. The panel noted that one document showed the teacher responding to the TRA’s representatives. 5. By reason of the above, the panel has decided to admit each of the documents and these should be paginated as set out in the correspondence bundle. Any express reference to documents in the correspondence bundle shall be referred to as the “Correspondence Bundle”. Proceeding in Absence The panel has considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. 6 The panel is satisfied that the TRA has complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel is also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, (the “Procedures”). The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel has taken as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel has recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel has noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. i) On the last occasion that contact was established with Mr Nuttycombe on 26 January 2023, he stated that he had not been teaching since 2020 and he did not have a hearing to deal with. He asked the TRA representatives to stop contacting him. The panel therefore believe that Mr Nuttycombe has decided not to engage with the TRA hearing. ii) The panel has noted that Mr Nuttycombe was later contacted by the TRA’s representative regarding his lack of response to the notice of proceedings. The panel therefore considers that the teacher had knowledge of when and where the hearing is taking place and has waived his right to be present at the hearing. iii) On the basis of the correspondence Mr Nuttycombe had sent to the TRA representatives, it was considered unlikely that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily, and iv) At the stage of panel’s considerations, it was unclear how long any such adjournment would be required to obtain Mr Nuttycombe’s engagement with the hearing. 7 v) The panel noted that Mr Nuttycombe was not represented and the panel had not received any correspondence or application from Mr Nuttycombe to adjourn the hearing to obtain legal representation. vi) The panel has recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. vii) The panel recognises that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. viii) The panel also notes that there are two witnesses present at the hearing, who are prepared to give evidence, and that it would be inconvenient for them to return again. The panel has decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considers that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witnesses; that on balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time is in favour of this hearing continuing today. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 2 to 3 Section 2: Notice of Referral, Notice of Proceedings – pages 4 to 19 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 20 to 23 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 24 to 153 The panel also received two videos: Appendix 13; and Appendix 14. In addition, the panel agreed to accept the Correspondence Bundle consisting of 23 pages. 8 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. Appendices 13 and 14 were viewed by the panel before the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from: 1. Witness A, [REDACTED