Mr Samuel John Woodhall: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome - Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education ...
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Mr Samuel John Woodhall: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2021
Contents
Introduction 3
Allegations 4
Preliminary applications 4
Summary of evidence 4
Documents 4
Statement of Agreed Facts 5
Witnesses 5
Decision and reasons 5
Findings of fact 6
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11
2Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on
behalf of the Secretary of State
Teacher: Mr Samuel John Woodhall
TRA reference: 18853
Date of Determination: 26 July 2021
Former Employer: Cheslyn Hay Academy, Staffordshire (the “School”)
Introduction
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the
TRA”) convened virtually on 26 July 2021, to consider the case of Mr Samuel John
Woodhall.
The panel members were Mr Neil Hillman (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Diarmuid
Bunting (lay panellist) and Ms Karen McArthur (lay panellist).
The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Valentine of Eversheds Sutherland
(International) LLP solicitors.
The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Sey Shabani of Browne Jacobson LLP
solicitors.
Mr Woodhall was present and was represented by Mr Lawrence Shaw (NASUWT).
The hearing took place in public, and was recorded, except for parts of the hearing which
were heard in private.
In advance of the hearing, after taking into consideration the public interest and the
interests of justice, the TRA and teacher jointly provided a signed statement of agreed
facts dated 29 April 2021 and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
3Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 25 May 2021.
It was alleged that Mr Samuel John Woodhall was guilty of unacceptable professional
conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that:
1. On or around Friday 1 November 2019 he used a hammer to cause damage to the
car of a colleague, Individual A, by:
a) Smashing the near rear side window;
b) Smashing the heated rear screen; and
c) Denting the body work.
2. His conduct, as may be found proven at allegation 1, constituted a criminal
offence, for which he accepted a conditional caution.
3. His conduct, as may be found proven at allegation 1, was despite management
advice concerning his conduct towards Individual A.
The teacher admitted the facts of allegations 1, 2 and 3 and that his behaviour amounted
to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into
disrepute.
Preliminary applications
There were no preliminary applications.
Summary of evidence
Documents
In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:
Section 1: Anonymised persons list – page 2
Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 4 to 12
Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 14 to 17
Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 20 to 70
Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 74 to 81
4The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle,
in advance of the hearing.
Statement of agreed facts
The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Woodhall on
29 April 2021. Mr Woodhall in his response to the notice of hearing dated 24 February
2021 requested for the allegations to be considered at a hearing.
Witnesses
The presenting officer called no witnesses.
The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness, called by the teacher:
Witness B – friend and colleague of the teacher.
The teacher also gave evidence.
Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision.
Mr Woodhall was employed as a teacher at the School from 1 September 2017 to 31
December 2019. Individual A was a colleague at the School. Mr Woodhall had been
[redacted].
In July 2019, further to an incident at the School, [redacted] both Mr Woodhall and
Individual A were issued with management advice by the School.
In November 2019 following an exchange of heated SMS messages and telephone
discussions Individual A attended Mr Woodhall’s home address. An argument occurred
whereby Mr Woodhall picked up a hammer from his house, which had been left due to
ongoing building works, and caused damage to Individual A’s vehicle, whilst she was
still sitting in it.
West Midlands police investigated the incident and Mr Woodhall accepted a conditional
caution for criminal damage on 2 November 2019. The conditions of the caution were
complied with in full by 15 January 2020.
In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Woodhall for the
allegations to be considered at a hearing.
5Findings of fact
The findings of fact are as follows:
The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these
reasons:
1. On or around Friday 1 November 2019 that you used a hammer to cause
damage to the car of a colleague, Individual A, by:
a. Smashing the near rear side window
b. Smashing the heated rear screen; and
c. Denting the body work.
2. Your conduct, as may be found proven at allegation 1, constituted a criminal
offence, for which you accepted a conditional caution.
3. Your conduct, as may be found proven at allegation 1, was despite
management advice concerning your conduct towards Individual A.
The panel decided to consider allegations 1 to 3 together as the allegations arose from
the same evidence heard during the hearing.
The allegations were admitted in their entirety by the teacher in the statement of agreed
facts dated and signed by the teacher on 29 April 2021. Additionally, the allegations were
supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. This evidence included
the following:
o the witness statement by Individual A to West Midlands police dated 2 November
2019 supported by six photographs of the damage caused to Individual A’s motor
vehicle by the teacher on 2 November 2019;
o the certificate of caution issued by West Midlands police citing the particulars of
the criminal offence and the conditions attached to the caution. This certificate was
signed by the teacher who confirmed that the conditions of the caution were
satisfied on 15 January 2020;
o the School’s investigation report and minutes of formal investigation meetings with
Individual A and the teacher which outlines the circumstances surrounding the
allegations and includes admissions made by the teacher to the School during the
course of these investigations;
o the management advice provided by the headteacher of the School at a meeting
on 4 July 2019 and confirmed by email communication to Mr Woodhall on 12 July
2019 to maintain a professional relationship and to adhere to the School policies,
procedures and framework and Teachers’ Standards; and
o the witness statement signed and dated by Mr Woodhall in June 2021 which
admits the allegations in their entirety.
6The panel, having considered the evidence outlined below, found on balance, the
allegations 1 to 3 and all facts proven.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that
may bring the profession into disrepute
Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of
those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct
that may bring the profession into disrepute.
In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition
of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”.
The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Woodhall, in relation to the facts found
proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel noted that a teacher is
expected to demonstrate consistently high standards of personal and professional
conduct. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2 the teacher breached the
following standards:
o Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school; and
o Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach.
The panel noted that despite the management advice issued by the headteacher of the
School on 4 July 2019 Mr Woodhall continued to engage on a personal level with
Individual A. This was after Mr Woodhall had been provided with a copy of the School’s
Code of Conduct and the Teachers’ Standards.
Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory
frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted
that despite warnings and management advice Mr Woodhall failed to demonstrate high
standards of personal and professional conduct.
The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Woodhall amounted to conduct which falls
significantly short of the standard expected of a teacher and is behaviour which involves
a breach of the standards of propriety expected of the profession. The panel also
considered whether Mr Woodhall’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of
the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice. The panel considered the Advice
and the reference to ‘arson and other major criminal damage’ as a relevant behaviour.
Whilst the panel noted that the circumstances of the criminal damage involved a weapon
and Individual A was sitting in the motor vehicle when the incident occurred, the panel did
not find that the teacher’s conduct amounted to ‘major criminal damage’ and therefore
found that none of these offences were strictly applicable. However, the panel
nonetheless found that the nature of the offence was serious for the reasons cited above.
7Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Woodhall was guilty of unacceptable
professional conduct.
The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and
considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the
community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can
hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models
in the way that they behave. The panel also found that Mr Woodhall’s actions in
damaging a motor vehicle and using a weapon with an occupant inside constituted
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
The panel noted that whilst the allegations took place outside the education setting, the
use of a weapon and potential harm to Individual A displayed misconduct which was
serious and would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a
teacher, potentially damaging the public perception.
Mr Woodhall acted in such a manner that had caused criminal damage to another
individual's car, for which he accepted a conditional caution. The panel therefore found
that the teacher’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into
disrepute.
Having found the facts of particulars 1, 2 and 3 proved, the panel further found that Mr
Woodhall’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct
that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State
Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct
that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to
consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition
order by the Secretary of State.
In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order
should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and
proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition
orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been
apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect.
The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice
and having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the
maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper
standards of conduct.
In the light of the panel’s findings against the teacher, which involved a police conditional
caution being issued for criminal damage to a colleague’s vehicle using a weapon whilst
the occupant was sitting in the vehicle, there was a strong public interest consideration.
8The panel considered that the profession could be seriously weakened if such conduct,
such as that found against the teacher, were not treated with the appropriate seriousness
when regulating the conduct of the profession.
The panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper
standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against the
teacher was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Mr Woodhall acted
contrary to the School’s Code of Conduct and Teachers’ Standards.
The panel also considered whether that there was a strong public interest consideration
in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no doubt had been cast upon his abilities
as an educator and that he is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession. The
panel considered evidence on this from the teacher’s character reference witnesses and
also considered the determinations in Wallace v Secretary of State for Education [2017]
in considering the positive public interest in retaining a teacher.
The panel was told how the teacher is a member of the senior leadership team, leading
on the School improvement plan areas of behaviour and attendance, a student mentor
and the creator and manager of the student outreach programme. The panel was told
how Mr Woodhall is a valued member of the team, highly regarded by colleagues and a
key member of the team in the School’s journey to meet its Ofsted objectives. Further,
the panel heard from Mr Woodhall that he ‘loves being a teacher. It is my life and my
passion’.
Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel
considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition
order, taking into account the effect that this would have on the teacher.
In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest
considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of the
teacher. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition
order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list
of such behaviours, those that are potentially relevant in this case are:
o serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the
Teachers’ Standards; and
o the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a
conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are ‘relevant
matters’ for the purposes of The Police Act 1997 and criminal record
disclosures.
The panel considered these factors in this case.
Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition
order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors.
9Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or
proportionate.
The panel found that Mr Woodhall’s actions on 2 November 2019 were not calculated
and were an isolated incident. Additionally, the panel noted that the teacher on 2
November 2019 may have been acting under duress following the difficulties arising from
the personal issues he was dealing with at that time. It is also noted that the teacher has
relocated counties and no longer is employed within the Staffordshire area.
The panel was told that Mr Woodhall had a previously good history and the panel
accepted that the incident was out of character. The panel heard character evidence from
Witness B, who has known the teacher in both a personal and profession capacity for
over 15 years. He told the panel that he is not aware of any other occasion when the
teacher has behaved in this manner prior to and after the incident. Indeed, Witness B told
the panel that Mr Woodhall’s actions on 2 November 2019 were “completely out of
character” and that he “has realised his mistake and now acts totally differently”.
The panel heard in evidence from Witness B and in the written character references that
there has never been any issue, incident or concern raised in relation to Mr Woodall’s
management of pupils. The panel noted that in June 2021 [redacted].
The panel had sight of 3-character references from 3 current colleagues, being the
headteacher, HR Manager and the head of behaviour and wellbeing at his current
school. All 3 references mentioned Mr Woodhall’s teaching capabilities, his leadership
role within the school and overall management of challenging issues within a challenging
catchment area. Witness B told the panel how the teacher has ‘an integral role in
improving areas of improvement identified by Ofsted’ and added that ‘the school’s
journey to be judged a good school is being led by his actions and skills.’ Additionally, he
described this as an “exceptional contribution” to the school. The panel found Witness B
to be a credible witness.
Mr Woodhall has demonstrated remorse and insight into this incident. He has throughout
the police investigation, school investigation and subsequent TRA proceedings acted
honestly and has fully cooperated. The panel acknowledged that the teacher immediately
admitted the offence and promptly complied with the conditions of the police caution and
apologised to Individual A the day after the incident.
Mr Woodhall admitted the allegations in full and in his evidence told the panel that
through his insight he is able to offer guidance and support to his pupils to educate them
on the impact of crime to prevent them in making similar mistakes. It was also noted that
the teacher has responsibility for the creation, development and implementation of the
behaviour management framework for pupils at the school.
10Witness B in his evidence told the panel that he has never had any concerns with the
teacher’s management of difficult confrontational situations with both pupils and parents.
He commented that ‘his management of situations like these has been exemplary’.
The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with
no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings
made by the panel would be sufficient.
The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen,
recommending no prohibition order was a proportionate and appropriate response.
Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the
possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the
panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate
in this case.
The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it made would be
sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour
that were not acceptable, and that the publication would meet the public interest
requirements of maintaining public confidence and declaring proper standards of the
profession.
Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the
panel in respect of sanction.
In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the
Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.
In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those
proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring
the profession into disrepute.
The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Samuel
Woodhall should not be the subject of a prohibition order. The panel has recommended
that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the
profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate
and in the public interest.
In particular, the panel has found that Mr Woodhall is in breach of the following
standards:
o Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school; and
11o Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach.
The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Woodhall fell significantly short of the standards
expected of the profession.
I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in
the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a
prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the
profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would
achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.
I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published
finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession
into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider
whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have
considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Woodhall, and the impact that will
have on him, is proportionate and in the public interest.
I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, set out as
follows, “Mr Woodhall has demonstrated remorse and insight into this incident. He has
throughout the police investigation, school investigation and subsequent TRA
proceedings acted honestly and has fully cooperated. The panel acknowledged that the
teacher immediately admitted the offence and promptly complied with the conditions of
the police caution and apologised to Individual A the day after the incident.
Mr Woodhall admitted the allegations in full and in his evidence told the panel that
“through his insight he is able to offer guidance and support to his pupils to educate them
on the impact of crime to prevent them in making similar mistakes.” I have therefore given
this element considerable weight in reaching my decision.
I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public
confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “In the light of the panel’s findings
against the teacher, which involved a police conditional caution being issued for criminal
damage to a colleague’s vehicle using a weapon whilst the occupant was sitting in the
vehicle, there was a strong public interest consideration. The panel considered that the
profession could be seriously weakened if such conduct, such as that found against the
teacher, were not treated with the appropriate seriousness when regulating the conduct
of the profession.”
I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of
all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a
failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to
consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed
citizen.”
12I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional
conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as
being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this
case.
I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Woodhall himself. The
panel was told that “Mr Woodhall had a previously good history and the panel accepted
that the incident was out of character. The panel heard character evidence from Witness
B, who has known the teacher in both a personal and profession capacity for over 15
years.”
A prohibition order would prevent Mr Woodhall from teaching. A prohibition order would
also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is
in force.
I have considered the panel’s comments “The panel was of the view that, applying the
standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, recommending no prohibition order was a
proportionate and appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the
behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered
the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for
a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case.”
In this case, I agree with the panel that the publication of the adverse findings made by
the panel is sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards
of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication will meet the public interest
requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.
Decision maker: Sarah Buxcey
Date: 2 August 2021
This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of
State.
13You can also read
