Stephen Fuller: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome - Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education - GOV.UK
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Stephen Fuller: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2021
Contents
Introduction 3
Allegations 4
Preliminary applications 4
Summary of evidence 4
Documents 4
Statement of agreed facts 5
Decision and reasons 5
Findings of fact 5
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9
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 Stephen David Fuller
TRA reference: 19324
Date of determination: 29 June 2021
Former employer: Ripley St Thomas Church of England Academy, Lancaster
Introduction
A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the
TRA”) convened on 29 June 2021 by way of a virtual meeting to consider the case of Mr
Fuller.
The panel members were Ms Esther Maxwell (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel
Byles (teacher panellist) and Mr Jeremy Phillips QC (lay panellist).
The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan solicitors.
In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the
interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Fuller that the allegations be
considered without a hearing. Mr Fuller provided a signed statement of agreed facts and
admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the
profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the
attendance of the presenting officer Ms Kathy McComb, Mr Fuller or his representative
Mr Paul Meekin.
The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision,
which was announced in public and recorded.
3Allegations
The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 19 May 2021.
It was alleged that Mr Fuller was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher
in Ripley St Thomas Church of England Academy:
1) He engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional text message exchanges with
Individual 1, who was a former pupil of the school and who was a minor at the time of
the contact on or around:
a) 5 March 2020
b) 6 March 2020
c) 6 April 2020
2) On or around 6 March 2020, he breached the School's Staff Code of Conduct, by
using his personal mobile phone to text Individual 1 during teaching time.
3) On or around 5 March 2020, you added Individual 1 on Snapchat and/or sent a
message to Individual 1 via Snapchat.
Mr Fuller admits the facts.
Mr Fuller admits 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: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 1 to 2
Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 2 to 11
Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations– pages 12 -
16
4Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 17 to 138
Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 139 to 173
Statement of agreed facts
The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Fuller on 19
April 2021.
Decision and reasons
The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:
In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Fuller for the allegations
to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be
considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The
panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case.
Mr Fuller was employed as teacher of religion, head of year and designated safeguarding
lead at Ripley St Thomas Church of England Academy (the School) from 1 September
2014 until his resignation on 30 April 2020. Individual 1 was a former pupil of the School,
and in March 2020 she was 17 years and 2 months old. On 5 March 2020 she attended a
parents' evening at the school with her mother and younger sibling. She spoke to Mr
Fuller and showed him a photograph of them together at a school prom. He asked her to
send him a copy of the photograph, and subsequently they exchanged mobile phone
numbers. He then sent her a number of messages and photographs over the course of
the evening that were not related to school, and he accepts they were of an inappropriate
and unprofessional nature. On or around the same day he added her on Snapchat and
sent her a message via Snapchat. On 6 March 2020, while at the School and during
teaching time, Mr Fuller made further contact with her. Mr Fuller accepts that this
breached the School's Staff Code of Conduct. And on 6 April 2020, Mr Fuller sent her a
further message. Mr Fuller accepts that these messages were of an inappropriate and
unprofessional nature.
Findings 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) You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional text message exchanges
with Individual 1, who was a former pupil of the school and who was a minor at
the time of the contact on or around:
5a) 5 March 2020
b) 6 March 2020
c) 6 April 2020
2) On or around 6 March 2020, you breached the School's Staff Code of Conduct,
by using your personal mobile phone to text Individual 1 during teaching time.
3) On or around 5 March 2020, you added Individual 1 on Snapchat and/or sent a
message to Individual 1 via Snapchat.
The allegations were admitted and were supported by the evidence presented to the
panel within the bundle. The allegations were therefore found proved.
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 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 Fuller in relation to all the facts proved
involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference
to Part 2, Mr Fuller's conduct as set out in particulars 1 and 3 was in breach of the
following standards:
Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect,
and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position
The panel noted that although Individual 1 was not a pupil at the time of the conduct, she
was a former pupil. Mr Fuller remade her acquaintance in March 2020 during a parents'
evening that she attended with her mother and sibling. At that time, she was a minor. In
these circumstances, the panel considered that his conduct in sending her personal
messages did amount to a breach of proper boundaries appropriate to his professional
position.
The panel found that Mr Fuller's conduct as set out in particular 2 was in breach of the
following standard:
6 Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach, …
The School's Staff Code of Conduct is clear that mobile phones and personally owned
devices should not be used during lessons or in formal school time activities.
The panel also considered whether Mr Fuller's conduct displayed behaviours associated
with any of the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice. The panel found that
none of these offences was relevant.
When considering the allegations, the panel noted that the allegations took place outside
the education setting, in that Individual 1 was not a pupil. However, the panel noted that
Individual 1 was known to Mr Fuller as a former pupil and the sibling of another pupil, and
some of his contact with her was during teaching time. The panel also noted that Mr
Fuller was a designated safeguarding lead for the school and should therefore have been
particularly well aware of the School's policies, the importance of maintaining proper
professional boundaries, the risks of using social media and setting an appropriate
example in this regard.
Having concluded that Mr Fuller's conduct involved breaches of the Teacher Standards,
the panel went on to consider whether those breaches were serious and significant
enough to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel had regard to the
following factors:
• Individual 1 was a minor.
• Individual 1 was known to Mr Fuller as a former pupil and a sibling of a current
pupil.
• Having asked Individual 1 for her mobile phone number, and been given it by her,
Mr Fuller initiated the text contact with her on 5 March 2020 and sought to
maintain that contact with her on 6 March 2020 and 6 April 2020, to which she did
not respond.
• The personal and informal nature of the communication, which included an image
of Mr Fuller blowing a kiss, using kiss symbols to sign off messages, and a
comment by him on Individual 1's appearance.
• The way in which his conduct was perceived by Individual 1, and the way in which
it might be perceived by the world at large. While the panel was clear that there
was no allegation that Mr Fuller's conduct was sexual in nature, or sexually
motivated (and made no finding to this effect), the panel noted that Individual 1
regarded the contact as "weird", "dodgy" and "freaky". Her perceptions were
understandable, given the nature of the communication. As a designated
7safeguarding lead, Mr Fuller should have been particularly alert to the risk that his
conduct would be received in this way.
• Mr Fuller suggests that at the time of his contact with Individual 1, he was worried
about how she was feeling and coping with life. The panel accepted his
explanation that his conduct was motivated by a desire to boost her morale, but
concluded that he went about this in an extremely naïve and unprofessional way
which was wholly inappropriate, bearing in mind how it might be perceived by
others.
• There is no evidence that Mr Fuller's conduct caused harm to Individual 1, beyond
the disquiet she describes.
• As a designated safeguarding lead, Mr Fuller should have been aware of
professional and appropriate ways of addressing his concerns about Individual 1's
well-being.
• Mr Fuller's state of mind at the time of the conduct. The panel accepted that the
personal difficulties he was experiencing at the time, including [redacted] and a
difficult house move, may have clouded his judgement.
• Snapchat is a social media platform widely used by young people. It includes a
messaging service which leaves no trail of messages sent or received. It is
therefore not transparent and cannot be audited or checked, and is therefore
particularly inappropriate.
The panel concluded that, notwithstanding the extent to which his personal judgement
was clouded, the other factors set out above demonstrate that Mr Fuller's conduct as set
out at particulars 1 and 3 was a serious breach of the Teacher Standards, and fell
significantly short of the standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. It therefore
amounted to unacceptable professional conduct.
The panel concluded that the only thing added to particulars 1 and 3 by particular 2 was
a breach of the School's Staff Code of Conduct (using a personal device during teaching
time). The panel considered that the full significance of Mr Fuller's conduct was reflected
by particulars 1 and 3. While it was a breach of a school policy for him to use a personal
device during teaching time, the panel concluded that this in itself was not so serious as
to amount to unacceptable professional conduct.
The panel went on to consider whether each of the allegations amounted to conduct
likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
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
8hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models
in the way they behave.
The panel found that Mr Fuller's misconduct was serious for the reasons set out above. It
concluded that the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the
individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception.
The panel therefore found that the teacher’s actions as set out at particulars 1 and 3
constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. It did not find that the
actions set out at particular 2 constituted conduct that may bring the profession into
disrepute, as although it involved a breach of school policy is was not in itself serious
enough, being a one-off event.
Having found the facts of particulars 1, 2 and 3 proved, the panel further found that Mr
Fuller’s conduct as set out in particulars 1 and 3 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 also had regard to the fact that a prohibition order is not an automatic
consequence of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may
bring the profession into disrepute.
It concluded that Mr Fuller's conduct, while serious enough to amount to unacceptable
professional conduct, was not at the higher end of the spectrum of seriousness for such a
finding. It was not sexual in nature or sexually motivated, and while it was likely to cause
embarrassment or disquiet to Individual 1, there is no evidence of harm to her. It was
confined to a single individual in a short period of time.
Furthermore, the panel took account of the admissions made by Mr Fuller, his
expressions of remorse, the considerable insight shown by him in his mitigation
statement, and the excellent testimonials provided. It is clear from these that his conduct
towards Individual 1 was an aberration that occurred at a time of considerable personal
9stress. He has reflected on his conduct and is now clear about how inappropriate and
unprofessional it was.
The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice.
The panel did not consider that a prohibition order was necessary for the protection of
pupils. In reaching this conclusion, the panel noted that his conduct on this occasion was
towards a former pupil, not a pupil. There is no evidence of previous misconduct towards
a pupil. Further, his misconduct appears to have been wholly out of character. Since the
incident, he has reflected and developed good insight into his misconduct, and the panel
concludes that it is highly unlikely that there would be any repetition in future should he
be allowed to continue teaching.
The panel concluded that public confidence in the profession, and declaring proper
standards in the profession could be upheld by the publication of its findings of
unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into
disrepute.
The panel also decided 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 he is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession.
Given these conclusions, 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 Mr Fuller.
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 Mr
Fuller. 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. The panel
had regard to the list of such behaviours, and concluded that while Mr Fuller's conduct
was serious, it was not at the higher end of the scale of seriousness, and none of the
other behaviours was present in this case.
The panel also had regard to the mitigating features set out in the Advice, and noted that
one of them applied: Mr Fuller had a previously good record. He has produced significant
testimonials from professional colleagues, as well as various messages from pupils and
families thanking him for what he has done throughout his teaching career. Together,
these speak highly of his abilities as a teacher and the positive contribution he can make.
The panel 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.
10The 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 requirement of 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 other than
allegation 2, those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and
conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has found
that allegation 2 does not amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct likely
to bring the profession into disrepute. I have therefore put that matter entirely from my
mind.
The panel has recommended that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct /
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 Fuller is in breach of the following standards:
Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of
ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect,
and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s
professional position.
Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and
practices of the school in which they teach, …
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
11achieve 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 Fuller, and the impact that will have on
him, is proportionate and in the public interest.
In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect
children. The panel has observed, “Mr Fuller's conduct as set out at particulars 1 and 3
was a serious breach of the Teacher Standards, and fell significantly short of the
standard of behaviour expected of a teacher. It therefore amounted to unacceptable
professional conduct.”
A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I
have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the
panel sets out as follows, “took account of the admissions made by Mr Fuller, his
expressions of remorse, the considerable insight shown by him in his mitigation
statement, and the excellent testimonials provided. It is clear from these that his conduct
towards Individual 1 was an aberration that occurred at a time of considerable personal
stress. He has reflected on his conduct and is now clear about how inappropriate and
unprofessional it was.” I have therefore given this element considerable weight in
reaching my overall decision.
I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public
confidence in the profession. The panel observe that it, “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 they behave.”
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.”
I 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 Fuller himself.
A prohibition order would prevent Mr Fuller from teaching and would also clearly deprive
the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.
12In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments, “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.”
For these reasons, I have also concluded that publication of the findings is sufficient and
in the public interest.
Decision maker: Alan Meyrick
Date: 30 June 2021
This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of
State.
13You can also read
