Mr Damian Sunter - Gov.uk
Mr Damian Sunter: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education
October 2017
Contents A.
Introduction
3
B.
Allegations
4-6
C.
Preliminary applications
6-8
D.
Summary of evidence
8-9
Documents
E.
8
Witnesses
8-9
Decision and reasons
9 -19
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
2
19 -21 21
Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher:
Mr Damian Sunter
NCTL case reference:
15404
Date of determination:
19 October 2017
Former employer:
Halton Holegate Church of England Primary School, Spilsby, Lincolnshire
A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 13 and 16 to 19 October 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Damian Sunter. The panel members were Mr Brian Hawkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Caroline Tilley (lay panellist) and Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Sunter was present and was represented by Ms Amanda Hart of counsel, instructed by the National Union of Teachers. The hearing took place in public, save in relation to evidence and submissions about certain personal information relating to Mr Sunter, which the panel heard in private. The whole hearing was recorded.
3
B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 6 October 2017. It was alleged that Mr Damian Sunter was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst working as the Headteacher at Halton Holegate Church of England Primary School ("the School"), between April 2014 and March 2016 he failed to maintain appropriate professional standards in that he: 1. Failed to fulfil the role of Headteacher, including but not limited to, that he: a. Failed to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finance; b. Inappropriately delegated his teaching duties to a Teaching Assistant; c. Failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy; d. Failed to provide appropriate support and review of the School's Newly Qualified Teacher e. Was absent from the School during school hours without reasonable excuse; f. Fell asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions. 2. Failed to adequately safeguard children and/or staff in that he: a. Failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils; b. Failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan; c. Encouraged JM to 'play down' an incident in which Pupil B hurt another pupil, Pupil F; d. Failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015; e. Failed to ensure staff training was up to date resulting in a period whereby the School was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first aiders; f. On 9 June 2015 left the School's premises without a qualified teacher on site; g. Failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours; h. Left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was accessible to children; i. Failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by LK; 4
3. Dealt inappropriately with Pupil A, a vulnerable child, in that he: a. On a date unknown in 2015: i. Took hold of Pupil A by the arm in a manner incompatible with Team Teach techniques; ii. Behaved aggressively towards Pupil A: iii.Declined assistance from other members of staff who attempted to intervene to de-escalate the situation: iv.Failed to complete a serious incident restraint form in respect of this incident; b. On a date unknown but different to that as set out at 3(a) above, stood over Pupil A and shouted at him. 4. Behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that he made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct. 5. Failed to follow management instructions and/or attempted to impede the School's investigation into his conduct in that he: a. On 2 July 2015 he was specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the whistleblowing process was confidential and he should only share it with his representative; b. In a letter dated 2 July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was strictly confidential and, other than obtaining appropriate trade union and/or legal advice, he was not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter of CH; c. Contrary to those instructions, he discussed the investigation with the School Administrator. Mr Sunter admitted the facts alleged in 1a to f, 2a to h, 3a iv and 4. Mr Sunter denied the facts alleged in 3a i and ii and 3b. Mr Sunter also admitted the factual particulars alleged in 3a iii, namely that he declined assistance from another member of staff, but he denied that this was inappropriate. In relation to allegation 5, Mr Sunter admitted the factual particulars in 5a, b and c and that he failed to follow management instructions. However he denied that he attempted to impede the School's investigation.
5
Mr Sunter admitted that his conduct in the allegations that he admitted amounts to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
C. Preliminary applications Application to amend the allegations and particulars of the allegations An application was made by Mr Perkins to amend the wording of the allegations in the Notice of Proceedings, which had omitted the overarching allegation of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. This had been included in the original Notice dated 24 May 2017 and the omissision did not extend to the Statement of Agreed/ Disputed Facts. In addition, Mr Perkins said that the words, 'in that he' were omitted from allegation 4 in the Notice of Proceedings. Mr Perkins applied for these words to be added after the word 'occasions'. Ms Hart confirmed that Mr Sunter did not object to this application and the panel agreed to the proposed amendments.
Applications in relation to documents Mr Perkins and Ms Hart submitted a Statement of Agreed/ Disputed Facts, which had not been included in the original bundle. Ms Hart applied to admit an additional document consisting of a plan of the School. Mr Perkins did not object to the admission of this document. The panel agreed to admit both of these documents. The panel was also presented with an additional bundle of documents that had been agreed by the parties after the original bundle had been sent to the panel. Not all of the panellists had been able to access this additional bundle. The panel requested that the documents in the additional bundle be consolidated into a single bundle. Mr Perkins and Ms Hart invited the panel to read limited parts of the bundle before hearing evidence from the three witnesses called to give evidence on 13 October 2017. After hearing submissions from the parties and receiving legal advice, the chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: 'The panel heard an application by Mr Perkins and Ms Hart for the panel to read a limited number of pages of the bundle of documents before hearing evidence from the three witnesses to be called by the presenting officer. The panel determined that it would be inappropriate and might lead to unfairness not to read all of the documents in advance of any witness giving oral evidence. On that basis, the panel decided to read all of the documents in the consolidated bundle before hearing any evidence. The panel has now read all of the documents.'
6
Application for part of the hearing to be in private Application was made on behalf of Mr Sunter that any detailed references to three categories of personal information should be heard in private. [Redacted]. After hearing submissions from Ms Hart and Mr Perkins and receiving legal advice, the chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: 'The panel has considered the application on behalf of Mr Sunter that any references in oral evidence or submissions to three categories of personal information, as identified by Ms Hart, should be heard in private. There is a public interest in this hearing taking place in public. However, the panel is satisfied that, in relation to the three categories of personal information identified, the public interest is outweighed by Mr Sunter's right to privacy. Accordingly, if it is necessary to make any oral references to those matters in evidence or submissions, the panel will go into private session for that limited purpose. Otherwise, the hearing will take place in public.'
Application in relation to witnesses on behalf of Mr Sunter. Ms Hart made an application in relation to character witnesses who have provided statements on behalf of Mr Sunter and whose evidence will be relevant to the mitigation stage, should that stage be reached. Ms Hart referred to the statements of the relevant witnesses in the bundle and invited the panel to indicate whether it would wish any of these witnesses to give oral evidence and, if so, whether they might give evidence by means of Skype or telephone. After receiving legal advice, the chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: 'Ms Hart made an application in relation to character witnesses that might give evidence at the mitigation stage, should that stage be reached. The panel does not consider it appropriate to comment on whether any of those witnesses should give oral evidence. This is a matter for Mr Sunter to determine in conjunction with Ms Hart. However, the panel confirms that, if a decision is made that any of the character witnesses should give oral evidence, the panel is prepared to allow their evidence to be given remotely by means of Skype or telephone'.
Applications for admission of further documents Ms Hart made an application for the admission of an additional document on behalf of Mr Sunter, namely an account written by Mr Sunter on his computer at home after the alleged incident involving Pupil A took place. The presenting officer did not oppose this application and the panel agreed to admit this additional document. The document was added to the bundle at section 5, pages 826 to 827. After the three witnesses called by the presenting officer had given their evidence, Ms Hart applied to introduce an additional document, namely a record of an interview of Father Martin Faulkener. Mr Perkins agreed that the document is potentially relevant and 7
Mr Perkins did not assert that it would be unfair to admit it. The panel agreed to admit the document, which was added to section 5 of the bundle as pages 828 to 831.
D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing reconvening on 16 October 2017, the panel received a consolidated bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 4. Section 2: Notice of Proceedings, Response and Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts – pages 6 to 16(K). Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 18 to 74. Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 77 to 85, 87 to 105, 107 to 110, 121 to 123, 128 to 132, 135 to 137, 143, 145 to 146, 149 to 153, 155 to 156, 160, 164 to 165, 167 to 171, 173 to 174, 177 to 178, 182, 184, 200 to 201, 205 to 206, 214, 224 to 228, 231 to 232, 234, 236, 238 to 241, 246 to 259, 263 to 264, 268 to 273, 275, 294 to 299, 301 to 303, 324 to 328, 340 to 341, 343, 349, 351 to 354, 360, 373, 375 to 384, 386 to 392, 411 to 413, 419 to 425, 428 to 442, 448 to 452, 454 to 460, 464 to 467, 469 to 476, 488 to 492 and 497 to 520, 534 to 537, 551 to 553, 599 to 600, 602 to 603, 623 to 624, 626 to 634, 641 to 652 and 656 to 668. Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 676 to 831. As the panel members had not had the opportunity to read all of the documents in advance of the hearing, the hearing was adjourned on 13 October 2017 to enable the panel to read all of the documents. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents prior to the resumption of the hearing on 16 October 2017.
Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer:
Witness A, teacher, formerly at the School.
Witness B, teaching assistant at the School.
Witness C, formerly a teaching assistant at the School.
In addition, the following witnesses were called by Ms Hart:
Damian Sunter. 8
Witness D, former teaching assistant at Chestnut Street Primary School, who gave evidence by telephone at the mitigation stage.
Witness E, former Parent Governor at the School, who gave evidence by telephone at the mitigation stage.
Witness F, former headteacher at St. Nicholas Church of England Primary School, who gave evidence in person at the mitigation stage.
E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case and reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing resuming on 16 October 2017. Mr Damian Sunter qualified as a teacher in 2001. Between 2001 and March 2013, he worked at three different schools. In the first two of these schools, he was appointed assistant headteacher. In the third school, he was a year leader and joint phase leader. In April 2013 he became headteacher at Halton Holgate Church of England Primary School, Spilsby, Lincolnshire ("the School"). This was his first appointment as headteacher. The School was a small three-class school in a rural location. In addition to being headteacher, Mr Sunter was required to teach for two days each week. In July 2015, Lincolnshire County Council began an investigation in relation to concerns that had been expressed in a whistleblowing letter. During the course of the investigation, various individuals were interviewed, including Mr Sunter himself. Mr Sunter has admitted the majority of the allegations against him and the panel has been provided with a Statement of Agreed/Disputed Facts. In relation to the allegations that are disputed, the panel has heard oral evidence from three witnesses called by the National College and from Mr Sunter himself.
Findings of fact The panel's findings of fact are as follows: 1. Failed to fulfil the role of Headteacher, including but not limited to, that you: a. Failed to fulfil your responsibilities in respect of the School's finances; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finances. In particular, Mr Sunter accepts that, when he joined the School, his understanding was that he would be responsible, with the Business Manager, for preparing the budget and reporting on finance to the governors. The budget for the first 9
year of his headship had been set by the previous headteacher. When it came to setting the budget in March 2014, Mr Sunter admits that he did not know as much as he should have known about finances and that he left too much of the responsibility to the School's Business Manager. The panel finds 1a proved. b. Inappropriately delegated your teaching duties to a Teaching Assistant; Mr Sunter admits that he inappropriately delegated his teaching duties to a teaching assistant at level TA1("TA1"). Mr Sunter was employed as a headteacher with a 0.4 teaching commitment, which meant he was required to teach for two days during each working week. Mr Sunter accepts that he delegated his teaching duties to a TA1 on more than one occasion, including during an Ofsted inspection, who was left in sole charge of teaching a class of pupils. It was not in dispute between the parties that a TA1 should not have been left in sole charge of teaching a class. The panel finds 1b proved. c. Failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy. In particular, the School’s policy was that, following sickness, staff should not attend the school for 48 hours. On 23rd June 2015 an Olympic swimmer was attending the school. Mr Sunter had been sick the night before, but attended school contrary to the policy. The panel finds 1c proved. d. Failed to provide appropriate support and review of the School's Newly Qualified Teacher Mr Sunter admits that he failed to provide appropriate support and review for the School’s Newly Qualified Teacher. In particular, Mr Sunter acknowledges that he failed to provide the NQT with adequate induction, SEND information and formal mentoring meetings. The panel finds 1d proved. e. Were absent from the School during school hours without reasonable excuse; Mr Sunter admits that on more than one occasion he was absent from the School during school hours without reasonable excuse. The panel finds 1e proved. f. Fell asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions.
10
Mr Sunter admits having fallen asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions. The panel finds 1f proved. The panel then considered whether, in relation to each particular found proved, Mr Sunter failed to fulfil the role of headteacher. In doing so, the panel focussed specifically on Mr Sunter's role as headteacher. The panel is satisfied that the conduct in particulars a and d involved the role of headteacher, but not the conduct in particulars b, c, e and f. Accordingly, allegation 1 is proved only in relation to 1a and 1d. 2. Failed to adequately safeguard children and/or staff in that you: a. Failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils. In particular, two statemented pupils in one class were supposed to be supported by two dedicated 1:1 supporters for 32.5 teaching hours per week. Mr Sunter did not ensure that this 1:1 support was available to them at all times. Mr Sunter permitted periods where the two pupils had to share a single supporter between them and failed to provide adequate cover when supporters were on leave. The panel noted that one of the statemented pupils was regarded as a physical danger to himself and others. The panel finds 2a proved. b. Failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan. In particular, Mr Sunter admits that he was responsible for the critical incident plan and failed to modify it during his time as headteacher with the effect that it was no longer up to date or fit for purpose. In 2015 the critical incident plan named individuals who had not worked at the school for two years. The panel has noted that, in his oral evidence, Mr Sunter stated that he had developed a business continuity plan which would form part of a critical incident plan. The panel finds 2b proved. c. Encouraged Individual A to 'play down' an incident in which Pupil B hurt another pupil, Pupil F; Mr Sunter admits that he encouraged a member of staff to 'play down’ to Pupil F’s parents an incident on 6th July 2015 in which Pupil B hurt Pupil F’s eye with a Lego brick. The incident was reported to Mr Sunter who then attended the scene. Mr Sunter admits that he instructed the Teaching Assistant to give a truthful account of what had happened
11
to Pupil F’s parents but to “play down” Pupil B’s actions. Mr Sunter states that he had not initially realised that the Lego brick had been thrown deliberately. The panel finds 2c proved. d. Failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015. However, Mr Sunter states that the school trip occurred subsequent to his suspension and avers that, had he not been suspended, he would have carried out a risk assessment. In particular, Mr Sunter had permitted a school trip for pupils to Mablethorpe beach. After Mr Sunter’s suspension, the School discovered that the trip was going to proceed without any risk assessment and that drivers who were to transport pupils were not insured to do and had to rectify these issues the day before the trip. The panel finds 2d proved. e. Failed to ensure staff training was up to date resulting in a period whereby the School was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first aiders; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure staff training was up to date, resulting in a period whereby the school was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first aiders. In particular, Mr Sunter allowed staff’s first aid certification to expire without organising suitable refresher training. The panel finds 2e proved. f. On 9 June 2015 left the School's premises without a qualified teacher on site; It is alleged that on 9 June 2015 Mr Sunter left the School’s premises without a qualified teacher on site. In particular it is alleged that Mr Sunter left the school premises to attend a meeting at another school. At that time it is alleged that there were no qualified teachers on site and the school’s Administrative Assistant was on leave. It is alleged that Mr Sunter left a 16 year old apprentice in charge of the school office and instructed the apprentice to contact him in the event of any problems at the School. It is alleged that there were no qualified teaching staff on site for 2-3 hours whilst Mr Sunter attended the meeting. Mr Sunter has no direct memory of these events, but is prepared to accept Allegation 2f on the balance of probabilities in light of the available evidence. The panel noted the witness statements of Individual B and Individual C, both teaching assistants, who confirm the above.
12
The panel finds 2f proved. g. Failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours. In particular, Mr Sunter failed to implement any formal system for locking the school gates whilst the caretaker was absent, which resulted in the school gates being left open or unlocked on a number of occasions. The panel finds 2g proved. h. Left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was accessible to children; Mr Sunter admits that he left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was accessible to children. In particular Piriton and Paracetemol tablets were found in an unlocked drawer in Mr Sunter’s classroom desk, which was accessible to pupils. Mr Sunter stated that the Piriton tablets were his, but he could not account for the paracetamol. The panel finds 2h proved. i. Failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by Witness B; It is alleged that Mr Sunter failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by Witness B. In particular it is alleged that, in December 2014, Witness B overheard a pupil telling other pupils that “my Dad takes his belt off to me”. It is alleged that Witness B reported this to Mr Sunter as a child protection issue. The Statement of Agreed/Disputed Facts states that Mr Sunter has no direct memory of this report, but is prepared to accept that it took place on the balance of probabilities given the evidence available. The panel noted that, when interviewed as part of the School's investigation, Mr Sunter stated that he did not believe that Witness B would lie about such a matter. This was a factor in him not challenging her account. The panel recognised that, as a consequence of Mr Sunter's admission, Witness B was not questioned about her statement in relation to this allegation. Like Mr Sunter, the panel has no reason to believe that Witness B would provide a false account of this particular matter. However, in order to find this allegation proved, the panel has to be satisfied of the words attributed to the pupil and that these gave rise to a child protection concern. No written record was made at the time and, as far as the panel is aware, no other evidence exists. Furthermore, when the matter was raised by Witness B as part of the School's investigation, there is no evidence of a safeguarding referral being made or of any investigation being undertaken. Taking all of these factors into account, the panel could not be satisfied that the alleged facts have been proved on the balance of probabilities. The panel, therefore, finds 2i not proved.
13
Having found the facts proved in particulars 2a to 2h, the panel considered whether the proven facts represented a failure on the part of Mr Sunter to adequately safeguard children and/or staff. The panel is so satisfied in relation to 2a and 2b and 2e to 2h. In relation to 2c, the panel accepts Mr Sunter's explanation that he had not initially realised that the Lego brick had been thrown deliberately. When the full situation became clear to him, he took appropriate action. Accordingly, the panel cannot be satisfied that Mr Sunter's actions failed to adequately safeguard children In relation to 2d, the panel has not been provided with the date of the proposed trip by reference to the date that Mr Sunter was suspended. Mr Sunter states that he would have completed the risk assessment had he still been in school. In these circumstances the panel cannot be satisfied that he would not have done so. Accordingly, the panel cannot be satisfied that Mr Sunter failed to adequately safeguard children or staff in relation to this trip. Accordingly allegation 2 is proved in relation to 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h only. 3. Dealt inappropriately with Pupil A, a vulnerable child, in that you: a. On a date unknown in 2015: i. Took hold of Pupil A by the arm in a manner incompatible with Team Teach techniques; It is alleged that Mr Sunter approached Pupil A when he was on the playing field and held him by his upper left arm and then escorted him off the field through the Key Stage 1 play area and into a classroom whilst holding him in this manner. The panel heard evidence from Witness B and Witness C, both teaching assistants at the time, who were on duty on the playing field. The panel also heard evidence from Witness A, a teacher, who stated that she was in a classroom overlooking the Key Stage 1 play area as Mr Sunter passed with Pupil A. All of these witnesses described Mr Sunter holding Pupil A by his upper arm as he escorted Pupil A. In his own evidence, Mr Sunter stated that he he used a Team Teach technique to escort Pupil A from the field. In his oral evidence, he described this as placing his arm under Pupil A's arm and placing his hand on Pupil A's lower arm to guide the pupil. Although, the witnesses called by the National College referred to the involvement of two people to undertake a Team Teach technique, they all accepted that it was possible for a Team Teach intervention to be conducted by one person alone. Although the panel was not presented with any manual or other documentatation in relation to Team Teach techniques, Mr Sunter accepted that, if he had held Pupil A by the upper arm in the manner described by Witness B, Witness C and Witness A, then this was not in accordance with any Team Teach technique. The panel is satisfied, based on the evidence of those three witnesses, that Mr Sunter did hold Pupil A by the upper arm and that this was not compatible with Team Teach techniques. Accordingly, 3a i is proved. 14
ii. Behaved aggressively towards Pupil A: The panel is satisfied by the evidence presented that Mr Sunter 'frogmarched' Pupil A, but not in an aggressive manner. In particular, the panel found that he did not 'drag' Pupil A. None of the witnesses has referred to Mr Sunter shouting at the pupil. There is no evidence of any injury to Pupil A. Witness C stated that Mr Sunter did not behave aggressively towards Pupil A when she observed them in the classroom. The panel is not, therefore, satisfied that the evidence presented establishes that Mr Sunter behaved aggressively towards Pupil A. Accordingly, 3a ii is not proved. iii.Declined assistance from other members of staff who attempted to intervene to de-escalate the situation: Mr Sunter admitted that he declined assistance from members of staff. Although he denies that Witness B offered her assistance. Mr Sunter admits that he declined offers of assistance from Witness C, Witness A and Individual C. Accordingly, 3a iii is proved. iv.Failed to complete a serious incident restraint form in respect of this incident; Mr Sunter admitted that he failed to complete a serious incident restraint form. Mr Sunter stated in his oral evidence that he completed a contemporaneous record of the incident, which he says he intended to transfer to a serious incident form, but did not do this. The panel finds 3a iv proved. Having found the facts proved in 3a i, iii and iv, the panel considered whether the proven conduct was inappropriate. In relation to 3a i, Mr Sunter stated that he found it necessary to intervene after Pupil A had fouled another pupil playing football. Mr Sunter stated that, after he had spoken to the pupil, Pupil A started to growl and clench his fists and then moved away and refused to come back. Mr Sunter stated that he was not comfortable with the level of anger displayed by Pupil A and it was at that point he felt he had to intervene when Pupil A refused to come off the field. In his oral evidence, Mr Sunter stated that Pupil A could, on occasions, lash out. The evidence of the three witnesses called by the National College confirmed that Pupil A was volatile. None of the three witnesses called by the National College had observed what led up to Mr Sunter's intervention, but their evidence strongly suggested that Pupil A was not co-operating and was refusing to leave the field. Witness C said in her oral evidence that, if Pupil A was behaving as described by Mr Sunter, 'we would want to remove him as quickly as possible. Every incident you had to 15
deal with differently. There were no set rules and no set plan as to how to deal with that child'. In these circumstances, the panel could not be satisfied that the manner in which Mr Sunter dealt with Pupil A was inappropriate. In relation to 3a iii, Mr Sunter does not accept that he acted inappropriately in refusing offers of assistance. The panel accepts his explanation of the exercise of his judgment in declining the offers of support from his colleagues. In relation to 3a iv, the panel is satisfied that, Mr Sunter's failure to complete a serious incident form was inappropriate. Accordingly, allegation 3a is proved in relation to 3a iv only. b. On a date unknown but different to that as set out at 3(a) above. Stood over Pupil A and shouted at him. The panel noted that Witness B did not provide a proper account of this alleged incident until interviewed as part of the School's investigation. No contemporaneous account was made and no action was taken by Witness B at the time. Mr Sunter denies the allegation. The panel is not satisfied that the evidence presented is sufficient to prove this allegation on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the panel finds 3b not proved. 4. Behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that you made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct. Mr Sunter admits that he behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that he made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct. The panel noted that on one occasion, Mr Sunter referred to Witness A as 'RE girl' on more than one occasion over the course of an afternoon and she asked him to stop. The panel also noted that, when interviewed as part of the School's investigation, Mr Sunter admitted that he had joked with another member of staff about the age difference between that member of staff and her partner. The panel finds allegation 4 proved based on Mr Sunter's admission and these two examples. 5. Failed to follow management instructions and/or attempted to impede the School's investigation into your conduct in that you: a. On 2 July 2015 you were specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the whistleblowing process was confidential and you should only share it with your representative; b. In a letter dated 2 July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was strictly confidential and, other than obtaining appropriate trade union 16
and/or legal advice, you were not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter of CH; c. Contrary to those instructions, you discussed the investigation with the School Administrator. Mr Sunter admits that on 2nd July 2015 he was specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the whistleblowing process was confidential and he should only share it with his representative. Mr Sunter also admits that in a letter dated 2nd July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was strictly confidential and other than obtaining appropriate trade union and/or legal advice he was not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter. Finally, Mr Sunter admits that, contrary to those instructions, he discussed the investigation with the School Administrator. Mr Sunter admits that he failed to follow management instructions, but denies that his actions were an attempt to impede the School's investigation. The panel finds 5a, b and c proved on the basis that Mr Sunter failed to follow management instructions. The panel did not find that Mr Sunter's actions were an attempt to impede the School's investigation into his conduct.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found allegations 1a and 1d, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h, 3a iv, 4 and 5a to c to have been proven, the panel has gone on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Sunter admits unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has taken these admissions into account, but has made its own determination. In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”. The panel has had regard to the definition of unacceptable professional conduct as misconduct of a serious nature which falls significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Further, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute should be viewed in a similar way. The panel first considered the conduct found proven in allegation 1. The panel is satisfied that, in failing to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finances in 1a, Mr Sunter breached Part Two of the Teachers' Standards in that he:
17
Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school.
The panel is satisfied that the conduct in 1a amounts to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel then considered the conduct in allegation 1d. The panel is not satisfied that Mr Sunter's conduct in 1d involved a breach of the Teachers' Standards. The panel is not satisfied that, in isolation, Mr Sunter's failure amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel considered whether, taken together with the conduct found proved in 1a, the conduct could be regarded as unacceptable professional conduct. The panel concluded that the conduct was of a different nature to that found proved in 1a and, therefore, it was not appropriate to consider the conduct on a cumulative basis. Accordingly, the panel finds that unacceptable professional conduct has been established in relation to allegation 1, solely on the basis of the conduct found proved in 1a. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 2. The panel is satisfied that the conduct in 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h involved a breach of Part Two of the Teachers' Standards in that: Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions;
The panel is satisfied that the conduct found proved in 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h amounts to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 3a iv. The panel is satisfied that Mr Sunter's failure to complete the serious incident restraint form was a breach of the Teachers' Standards in that Mr Sunter:
Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school.
However, the panel was not satisfied that the failure to complete the form amounted to serious misconduct, falling significantly short of the standards expected of a teacher. The panel has taken into account the fact that this was an isolated failure and that Mr Sunter had completed a note detailing the incident. Accordingly, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established in relation to 3a iv. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 4. The panel noted that the National College produced only two examples of a joke. One was in the witness statetment of Witness A, who objected to Mr Sunter's use of a particular expression over 18
one afternoon. She asked him to stop. The panel had no evidence that he did otherwise. The other example was that Mr Sunter had joked with another member of staff about the age difference between that member of staff and her partner. This conduct is not serious misconduct and, therefore, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established in relation to allegation 4. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 5a, b and c. The panel has taken into account the fact that Mr Sunter stated that he only spoke to the School Administrator as he felt desperate and had limited support outside of the School. It was not an attempt to impede the School's investigation. This conduct is not serious misconduct and, therefore, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established in relation to allegation 5. The panel, therefore, concludes that Mr Sunter is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in relation to allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h. In considering conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel has taken into account how 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 has taken account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way they behave. The panel therefore concludes, by reference to the findings above, that Mr Sunter's actions in allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h constitute 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 is 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 has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it is 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 has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice. The panel also acknowledged that there may be a public interest in an effective teacher being able to continue to practise in their chosen profession.
19
The panel has found a number of public interest considerations to be relevant in this case, namely the protection of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the findings of failing to adequately safeguard children. Similarly, the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Sunter were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel considered that a clear public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Sunter was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 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 Mr Sunter. In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Sunter. 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 proven. In the list of such behaviours, the following is relevant in this case:
serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;
These were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being appropriate. However, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating factors to militate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature of the behaviour in this case. The findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute that have been made against Mr Sunter were failures to act rather than deliberate acts on his part. Mr Sunter was not acting under duress, but the panel found that he was under considerable pressure and, furthermore, the support that was in place for him, as a newly appointed headteacher, was inadequate. The panel heard evidence from Witness F that a formal mentor system should have been in place for Mr Sunter. The informal system that was in place was neither sufficient, nor robust. In addition, there was a series of challenging staffing issues, including the departure of the Senior Teacher and constant turnover of staff in other positions in the School. The panel heard evidence that
20
recruitment of appropriate staff from the area was very difficult. Mr Sunter found himself undertaking a multitude of roles, including, at one stage, cleaning the School. [Redacted]. Having heard evidence from Mr Sunter, the panel accepts that the pressures he faced at that time, in his role as headteacher, in conjunction with his health issues, impacted on his performance as a school leader. Mr Sunter has stated that he has no intention to seek a position as headteacher in the future. Mr Sunter did have a previously good history and the panel accepts that the conduct was a consequence of the situation in which Mr Sunter found himself at the School. The panel has been presented with oral and written character evidence from a number of witnesses. Witness F was the headteacher at St Nicholas Church of England Primary School, where Mr Sunter worked between February 2001 and 2011. Witness F described Mr Sunter as a 'highly professional, dedicated, brilliant teacher who always has the best interests of the children at the heart of everything he does.' Witness F also said in her oral evidence that Mr Sunter was 'one of the best teachers that [she] has ever worked with.' Witness D, was a teaching assistant at Chestnut Street Primary School, where Mr Sunter worked as assistant headteacher between 2011 and 2012. Witness D described Mr Sunter's, 'great professionalism, kindness and excellent teaching/classroom management.' In addition, Witness E, who was a Parent Governor at the School, described Mr Sunter as a 'talented teacher'. The panel is not of the view that prohibition is a proportionate and appropriate response. The nature of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The particulars of allegation 2 found proved against Mr Sunter occurred in the period shortly before his suspension, when the pressure on him was intense. In light of the significant mitigating factors that were present in this case, as referred to above, the panel has determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order will not be appropriate in this case.
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 is published by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has not found all of the allegations proven. Indeed, even where they have found allegations proven, they have not found all of those allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In summary, the panel’s final position is set out below: 21
“The panel, therefore, concludes that Mr Sunter is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in relation to allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h.” “The panel therefore concludes, by reference to the findings above, that Mr Sunter's actions in allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h constitute conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.” I have put from my mind all of the allegations where there was no finding of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Sunter should not be the subject of a prohibition order. In this case the panel has found that Mr Sunter is in breach of the following standards: For 1a:
Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school.
For 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h
having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions;
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 or not 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 Sunter, and the impact that will have on him, is proportionate. In this case I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children. The panel has observed “There is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the findings of failing to adequately safeguard children.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “public confidence in the profession
22
could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Sunter were not treated with the utmost 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 failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public 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 Sunter. I have read the mitigation considered by the panel. I have noted in particular the comments that include, 'highly professional, dedicated, brilliant teacher who always has the best interests of the children at the heart of everything he does.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Sunter from continuing that work. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments, “The findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute that have been made against Mr Sunter were failures to act rather than deliberate acts on his part.” I have also placed considerable weight on the finding of the panel concerning, “the significant mitigating factors that were present in this case, as referred to above.” For these reasons I have concluded that imposing no prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. I consider therefore that a prohibition order is not necessary in this case.
Decision maker: Alan Meyrick Date: 26 October 2017 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.
23
October 2017
Contents A.
Introduction
3
B.
Allegations
4-6
C.
Preliminary applications
6-8
D.
Summary of evidence
8-9
Documents
E.
8
Witnesses
8-9
Decision and reasons
9 -19
Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State
2
19 -21 21
Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher:
Mr Damian Sunter
NCTL case reference:
15404
Date of determination:
19 October 2017
Former employer:
Halton Holegate Church of England Primary School, Spilsby, Lincolnshire
A. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 13 and 16 to 19 October 2017 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Damian Sunter. The panel members were Mr Brian Hawkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Caroline Tilley (lay panellist) and Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Sunter was present and was represented by Ms Amanda Hart of counsel, instructed by the National Union of Teachers. The hearing took place in public, save in relation to evidence and submissions about certain personal information relating to Mr Sunter, which the panel heard in private. The whole hearing was recorded.
3
B. Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 6 October 2017. It was alleged that Mr Damian Sunter was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst working as the Headteacher at Halton Holegate Church of England Primary School ("the School"), between April 2014 and March 2016 he failed to maintain appropriate professional standards in that he: 1. Failed to fulfil the role of Headteacher, including but not limited to, that he: a. Failed to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finance; b. Inappropriately delegated his teaching duties to a Teaching Assistant; c. Failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy; d. Failed to provide appropriate support and review of the School's Newly Qualified Teacher e. Was absent from the School during school hours without reasonable excuse; f. Fell asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions. 2. Failed to adequately safeguard children and/or staff in that he: a. Failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils; b. Failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan; c. Encouraged JM to 'play down' an incident in which Pupil B hurt another pupil, Pupil F; d. Failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015; e. Failed to ensure staff training was up to date resulting in a period whereby the School was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first aiders; f. On 9 June 2015 left the School's premises without a qualified teacher on site; g. Failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours; h. Left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was accessible to children; i. Failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by LK; 4
3. Dealt inappropriately with Pupil A, a vulnerable child, in that he: a. On a date unknown in 2015: i. Took hold of Pupil A by the arm in a manner incompatible with Team Teach techniques; ii. Behaved aggressively towards Pupil A: iii.Declined assistance from other members of staff who attempted to intervene to de-escalate the situation: iv.Failed to complete a serious incident restraint form in respect of this incident; b. On a date unknown but different to that as set out at 3(a) above, stood over Pupil A and shouted at him. 4. Behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that he made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct. 5. Failed to follow management instructions and/or attempted to impede the School's investigation into his conduct in that he: a. On 2 July 2015 he was specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the whistleblowing process was confidential and he should only share it with his representative; b. In a letter dated 2 July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was strictly confidential and, other than obtaining appropriate trade union and/or legal advice, he was not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter of CH; c. Contrary to those instructions, he discussed the investigation with the School Administrator. Mr Sunter admitted the facts alleged in 1a to f, 2a to h, 3a iv and 4. Mr Sunter denied the facts alleged in 3a i and ii and 3b. Mr Sunter also admitted the factual particulars alleged in 3a iii, namely that he declined assistance from another member of staff, but he denied that this was inappropriate. In relation to allegation 5, Mr Sunter admitted the factual particulars in 5a, b and c and that he failed to follow management instructions. However he denied that he attempted to impede the School's investigation.
5
Mr Sunter admitted that his conduct in the allegations that he admitted amounts to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
C. Preliminary applications Application to amend the allegations and particulars of the allegations An application was made by Mr Perkins to amend the wording of the allegations in the Notice of Proceedings, which had omitted the overarching allegation of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. This had been included in the original Notice dated 24 May 2017 and the omissision did not extend to the Statement of Agreed/ Disputed Facts. In addition, Mr Perkins said that the words, 'in that he' were omitted from allegation 4 in the Notice of Proceedings. Mr Perkins applied for these words to be added after the word 'occasions'. Ms Hart confirmed that Mr Sunter did not object to this application and the panel agreed to the proposed amendments.
Applications in relation to documents Mr Perkins and Ms Hart submitted a Statement of Agreed/ Disputed Facts, which had not been included in the original bundle. Ms Hart applied to admit an additional document consisting of a plan of the School. Mr Perkins did not object to the admission of this document. The panel agreed to admit both of these documents. The panel was also presented with an additional bundle of documents that had been agreed by the parties after the original bundle had been sent to the panel. Not all of the panellists had been able to access this additional bundle. The panel requested that the documents in the additional bundle be consolidated into a single bundle. Mr Perkins and Ms Hart invited the panel to read limited parts of the bundle before hearing evidence from the three witnesses called to give evidence on 13 October 2017. After hearing submissions from the parties and receiving legal advice, the chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: 'The panel heard an application by Mr Perkins and Ms Hart for the panel to read a limited number of pages of the bundle of documents before hearing evidence from the three witnesses to be called by the presenting officer. The panel determined that it would be inappropriate and might lead to unfairness not to read all of the documents in advance of any witness giving oral evidence. On that basis, the panel decided to read all of the documents in the consolidated bundle before hearing any evidence. The panel has now read all of the documents.'
6
Application for part of the hearing to be in private Application was made on behalf of Mr Sunter that any detailed references to three categories of personal information should be heard in private. [Redacted]. After hearing submissions from Ms Hart and Mr Perkins and receiving legal advice, the chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: 'The panel has considered the application on behalf of Mr Sunter that any references in oral evidence or submissions to three categories of personal information, as identified by Ms Hart, should be heard in private. There is a public interest in this hearing taking place in public. However, the panel is satisfied that, in relation to the three categories of personal information identified, the public interest is outweighed by Mr Sunter's right to privacy. Accordingly, if it is necessary to make any oral references to those matters in evidence or submissions, the panel will go into private session for that limited purpose. Otherwise, the hearing will take place in public.'
Application in relation to witnesses on behalf of Mr Sunter. Ms Hart made an application in relation to character witnesses who have provided statements on behalf of Mr Sunter and whose evidence will be relevant to the mitigation stage, should that stage be reached. Ms Hart referred to the statements of the relevant witnesses in the bundle and invited the panel to indicate whether it would wish any of these witnesses to give oral evidence and, if so, whether they might give evidence by means of Skype or telephone. After receiving legal advice, the chair announced the decision of the panel as follows: 'Ms Hart made an application in relation to character witnesses that might give evidence at the mitigation stage, should that stage be reached. The panel does not consider it appropriate to comment on whether any of those witnesses should give oral evidence. This is a matter for Mr Sunter to determine in conjunction with Ms Hart. However, the panel confirms that, if a decision is made that any of the character witnesses should give oral evidence, the panel is prepared to allow their evidence to be given remotely by means of Skype or telephone'.
Applications for admission of further documents Ms Hart made an application for the admission of an additional document on behalf of Mr Sunter, namely an account written by Mr Sunter on his computer at home after the alleged incident involving Pupil A took place. The presenting officer did not oppose this application and the panel agreed to admit this additional document. The document was added to the bundle at section 5, pages 826 to 827. After the three witnesses called by the presenting officer had given their evidence, Ms Hart applied to introduce an additional document, namely a record of an interview of Father Martin Faulkener. Mr Perkins agreed that the document is potentially relevant and 7
Mr Perkins did not assert that it would be unfair to admit it. The panel agreed to admit the document, which was added to section 5 of the bundle as pages 828 to 831.
D. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing reconvening on 16 October 2017, the panel received a consolidated bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 4. Section 2: Notice of Proceedings, Response and Statement of Agreed and Disputed Facts – pages 6 to 16(K). Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 18 to 74. Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 77 to 85, 87 to 105, 107 to 110, 121 to 123, 128 to 132, 135 to 137, 143, 145 to 146, 149 to 153, 155 to 156, 160, 164 to 165, 167 to 171, 173 to 174, 177 to 178, 182, 184, 200 to 201, 205 to 206, 214, 224 to 228, 231 to 232, 234, 236, 238 to 241, 246 to 259, 263 to 264, 268 to 273, 275, 294 to 299, 301 to 303, 324 to 328, 340 to 341, 343, 349, 351 to 354, 360, 373, 375 to 384, 386 to 392, 411 to 413, 419 to 425, 428 to 442, 448 to 452, 454 to 460, 464 to 467, 469 to 476, 488 to 492 and 497 to 520, 534 to 537, 551 to 553, 599 to 600, 602 to 603, 623 to 624, 626 to 634, 641 to 652 and 656 to 668. Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 676 to 831. As the panel members had not had the opportunity to read all of the documents in advance of the hearing, the hearing was adjourned on 13 October 2017 to enable the panel to read all of the documents. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents prior to the resumption of the hearing on 16 October 2017.
Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer:
Witness A, teacher, formerly at the School.
Witness B, teaching assistant at the School.
Witness C, formerly a teaching assistant at the School.
In addition, the following witnesses were called by Ms Hart:
Damian Sunter. 8
Witness D, former teaching assistant at Chestnut Street Primary School, who gave evidence by telephone at the mitigation stage.
Witness E, former Parent Governor at the School, who gave evidence by telephone at the mitigation stage.
Witness F, former headteacher at St. Nicholas Church of England Primary School, who gave evidence in person at the mitigation stage.
E. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered the case and reached a decision. The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance of the hearing resuming on 16 October 2017. Mr Damian Sunter qualified as a teacher in 2001. Between 2001 and March 2013, he worked at three different schools. In the first two of these schools, he was appointed assistant headteacher. In the third school, he was a year leader and joint phase leader. In April 2013 he became headteacher at Halton Holgate Church of England Primary School, Spilsby, Lincolnshire ("the School"). This was his first appointment as headteacher. The School was a small three-class school in a rural location. In addition to being headteacher, Mr Sunter was required to teach for two days each week. In July 2015, Lincolnshire County Council began an investigation in relation to concerns that had been expressed in a whistleblowing letter. During the course of the investigation, various individuals were interviewed, including Mr Sunter himself. Mr Sunter has admitted the majority of the allegations against him and the panel has been provided with a Statement of Agreed/Disputed Facts. In relation to the allegations that are disputed, the panel has heard oral evidence from three witnesses called by the National College and from Mr Sunter himself.
Findings of fact The panel's findings of fact are as follows: 1. Failed to fulfil the role of Headteacher, including but not limited to, that you: a. Failed to fulfil your responsibilities in respect of the School's finances; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finances. In particular, Mr Sunter accepts that, when he joined the School, his understanding was that he would be responsible, with the Business Manager, for preparing the budget and reporting on finance to the governors. The budget for the first 9
year of his headship had been set by the previous headteacher. When it came to setting the budget in March 2014, Mr Sunter admits that he did not know as much as he should have known about finances and that he left too much of the responsibility to the School's Business Manager. The panel finds 1a proved. b. Inappropriately delegated your teaching duties to a Teaching Assistant; Mr Sunter admits that he inappropriately delegated his teaching duties to a teaching assistant at level TA1("TA1"). Mr Sunter was employed as a headteacher with a 0.4 teaching commitment, which meant he was required to teach for two days during each working week. Mr Sunter accepts that he delegated his teaching duties to a TA1 on more than one occasion, including during an Ofsted inspection, who was left in sole charge of teaching a class of pupils. It was not in dispute between the parties that a TA1 should not have been left in sole charge of teaching a class. The panel finds 1b proved. c. Failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy. In particular, the School’s policy was that, following sickness, staff should not attend the school for 48 hours. On 23rd June 2015 an Olympic swimmer was attending the school. Mr Sunter had been sick the night before, but attended school contrary to the policy. The panel finds 1c proved. d. Failed to provide appropriate support and review of the School's Newly Qualified Teacher Mr Sunter admits that he failed to provide appropriate support and review for the School’s Newly Qualified Teacher. In particular, Mr Sunter acknowledges that he failed to provide the NQT with adequate induction, SEND information and formal mentoring meetings. The panel finds 1d proved. e. Were absent from the School during school hours without reasonable excuse; Mr Sunter admits that on more than one occasion he was absent from the School during school hours without reasonable excuse. The panel finds 1e proved. f. Fell asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions.
10
Mr Sunter admits having fallen asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions. The panel finds 1f proved. The panel then considered whether, in relation to each particular found proved, Mr Sunter failed to fulfil the role of headteacher. In doing so, the panel focussed specifically on Mr Sunter's role as headteacher. The panel is satisfied that the conduct in particulars a and d involved the role of headteacher, but not the conduct in particulars b, c, e and f. Accordingly, allegation 1 is proved only in relation to 1a and 1d. 2. Failed to adequately safeguard children and/or staff in that you: a. Failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils. In particular, two statemented pupils in one class were supposed to be supported by two dedicated 1:1 supporters for 32.5 teaching hours per week. Mr Sunter did not ensure that this 1:1 support was available to them at all times. Mr Sunter permitted periods where the two pupils had to share a single supporter between them and failed to provide adequate cover when supporters were on leave. The panel noted that one of the statemented pupils was regarded as a physical danger to himself and others. The panel finds 2a proved. b. Failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan. In particular, Mr Sunter admits that he was responsible for the critical incident plan and failed to modify it during his time as headteacher with the effect that it was no longer up to date or fit for purpose. In 2015 the critical incident plan named individuals who had not worked at the school for two years. The panel has noted that, in his oral evidence, Mr Sunter stated that he had developed a business continuity plan which would form part of a critical incident plan. The panel finds 2b proved. c. Encouraged Individual A to 'play down' an incident in which Pupil B hurt another pupil, Pupil F; Mr Sunter admits that he encouraged a member of staff to 'play down’ to Pupil F’s parents an incident on 6th July 2015 in which Pupil B hurt Pupil F’s eye with a Lego brick. The incident was reported to Mr Sunter who then attended the scene. Mr Sunter admits that he instructed the Teaching Assistant to give a truthful account of what had happened
11
to Pupil F’s parents but to “play down” Pupil B’s actions. Mr Sunter states that he had not initially realised that the Lego brick had been thrown deliberately. The panel finds 2c proved. d. Failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015. However, Mr Sunter states that the school trip occurred subsequent to his suspension and avers that, had he not been suspended, he would have carried out a risk assessment. In particular, Mr Sunter had permitted a school trip for pupils to Mablethorpe beach. After Mr Sunter’s suspension, the School discovered that the trip was going to proceed without any risk assessment and that drivers who were to transport pupils were not insured to do and had to rectify these issues the day before the trip. The panel finds 2d proved. e. Failed to ensure staff training was up to date resulting in a period whereby the School was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first aiders; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure staff training was up to date, resulting in a period whereby the school was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first aiders. In particular, Mr Sunter allowed staff’s first aid certification to expire without organising suitable refresher training. The panel finds 2e proved. f. On 9 June 2015 left the School's premises without a qualified teacher on site; It is alleged that on 9 June 2015 Mr Sunter left the School’s premises without a qualified teacher on site. In particular it is alleged that Mr Sunter left the school premises to attend a meeting at another school. At that time it is alleged that there were no qualified teachers on site and the school’s Administrative Assistant was on leave. It is alleged that Mr Sunter left a 16 year old apprentice in charge of the school office and instructed the apprentice to contact him in the event of any problems at the School. It is alleged that there were no qualified teaching staff on site for 2-3 hours whilst Mr Sunter attended the meeting. Mr Sunter has no direct memory of these events, but is prepared to accept Allegation 2f on the balance of probabilities in light of the available evidence. The panel noted the witness statements of Individual B and Individual C, both teaching assistants, who confirm the above.
12
The panel finds 2f proved. g. Failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours; Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours. In particular, Mr Sunter failed to implement any formal system for locking the school gates whilst the caretaker was absent, which resulted in the school gates being left open or unlocked on a number of occasions. The panel finds 2g proved. h. Left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was accessible to children; Mr Sunter admits that he left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was accessible to children. In particular Piriton and Paracetemol tablets were found in an unlocked drawer in Mr Sunter’s classroom desk, which was accessible to pupils. Mr Sunter stated that the Piriton tablets were his, but he could not account for the paracetamol. The panel finds 2h proved. i. Failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by Witness B; It is alleged that Mr Sunter failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by Witness B. In particular it is alleged that, in December 2014, Witness B overheard a pupil telling other pupils that “my Dad takes his belt off to me”. It is alleged that Witness B reported this to Mr Sunter as a child protection issue. The Statement of Agreed/Disputed Facts states that Mr Sunter has no direct memory of this report, but is prepared to accept that it took place on the balance of probabilities given the evidence available. The panel noted that, when interviewed as part of the School's investigation, Mr Sunter stated that he did not believe that Witness B would lie about such a matter. This was a factor in him not challenging her account. The panel recognised that, as a consequence of Mr Sunter's admission, Witness B was not questioned about her statement in relation to this allegation. Like Mr Sunter, the panel has no reason to believe that Witness B would provide a false account of this particular matter. However, in order to find this allegation proved, the panel has to be satisfied of the words attributed to the pupil and that these gave rise to a child protection concern. No written record was made at the time and, as far as the panel is aware, no other evidence exists. Furthermore, when the matter was raised by Witness B as part of the School's investigation, there is no evidence of a safeguarding referral being made or of any investigation being undertaken. Taking all of these factors into account, the panel could not be satisfied that the alleged facts have been proved on the balance of probabilities. The panel, therefore, finds 2i not proved.
13
Having found the facts proved in particulars 2a to 2h, the panel considered whether the proven facts represented a failure on the part of Mr Sunter to adequately safeguard children and/or staff. The panel is so satisfied in relation to 2a and 2b and 2e to 2h. In relation to 2c, the panel accepts Mr Sunter's explanation that he had not initially realised that the Lego brick had been thrown deliberately. When the full situation became clear to him, he took appropriate action. Accordingly, the panel cannot be satisfied that Mr Sunter's actions failed to adequately safeguard children In relation to 2d, the panel has not been provided with the date of the proposed trip by reference to the date that Mr Sunter was suspended. Mr Sunter states that he would have completed the risk assessment had he still been in school. In these circumstances the panel cannot be satisfied that he would not have done so. Accordingly, the panel cannot be satisfied that Mr Sunter failed to adequately safeguard children or staff in relation to this trip. Accordingly allegation 2 is proved in relation to 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h only. 3. Dealt inappropriately with Pupil A, a vulnerable child, in that you: a. On a date unknown in 2015: i. Took hold of Pupil A by the arm in a manner incompatible with Team Teach techniques; It is alleged that Mr Sunter approached Pupil A when he was on the playing field and held him by his upper left arm and then escorted him off the field through the Key Stage 1 play area and into a classroom whilst holding him in this manner. The panel heard evidence from Witness B and Witness C, both teaching assistants at the time, who were on duty on the playing field. The panel also heard evidence from Witness A, a teacher, who stated that she was in a classroom overlooking the Key Stage 1 play area as Mr Sunter passed with Pupil A. All of these witnesses described Mr Sunter holding Pupil A by his upper arm as he escorted Pupil A. In his own evidence, Mr Sunter stated that he he used a Team Teach technique to escort Pupil A from the field. In his oral evidence, he described this as placing his arm under Pupil A's arm and placing his hand on Pupil A's lower arm to guide the pupil. Although, the witnesses called by the National College referred to the involvement of two people to undertake a Team Teach technique, they all accepted that it was possible for a Team Teach intervention to be conducted by one person alone. Although the panel was not presented with any manual or other documentatation in relation to Team Teach techniques, Mr Sunter accepted that, if he had held Pupil A by the upper arm in the manner described by Witness B, Witness C and Witness A, then this was not in accordance with any Team Teach technique. The panel is satisfied, based on the evidence of those three witnesses, that Mr Sunter did hold Pupil A by the upper arm and that this was not compatible with Team Teach techniques. Accordingly, 3a i is proved. 14
ii. Behaved aggressively towards Pupil A: The panel is satisfied by the evidence presented that Mr Sunter 'frogmarched' Pupil A, but not in an aggressive manner. In particular, the panel found that he did not 'drag' Pupil A. None of the witnesses has referred to Mr Sunter shouting at the pupil. There is no evidence of any injury to Pupil A. Witness C stated that Mr Sunter did not behave aggressively towards Pupil A when she observed them in the classroom. The panel is not, therefore, satisfied that the evidence presented establishes that Mr Sunter behaved aggressively towards Pupil A. Accordingly, 3a ii is not proved. iii.Declined assistance from other members of staff who attempted to intervene to de-escalate the situation: Mr Sunter admitted that he declined assistance from members of staff. Although he denies that Witness B offered her assistance. Mr Sunter admits that he declined offers of assistance from Witness C, Witness A and Individual C. Accordingly, 3a iii is proved. iv.Failed to complete a serious incident restraint form in respect of this incident; Mr Sunter admitted that he failed to complete a serious incident restraint form. Mr Sunter stated in his oral evidence that he completed a contemporaneous record of the incident, which he says he intended to transfer to a serious incident form, but did not do this. The panel finds 3a iv proved. Having found the facts proved in 3a i, iii and iv, the panel considered whether the proven conduct was inappropriate. In relation to 3a i, Mr Sunter stated that he found it necessary to intervene after Pupil A had fouled another pupil playing football. Mr Sunter stated that, after he had spoken to the pupil, Pupil A started to growl and clench his fists and then moved away and refused to come back. Mr Sunter stated that he was not comfortable with the level of anger displayed by Pupil A and it was at that point he felt he had to intervene when Pupil A refused to come off the field. In his oral evidence, Mr Sunter stated that Pupil A could, on occasions, lash out. The evidence of the three witnesses called by the National College confirmed that Pupil A was volatile. None of the three witnesses called by the National College had observed what led up to Mr Sunter's intervention, but their evidence strongly suggested that Pupil A was not co-operating and was refusing to leave the field. Witness C said in her oral evidence that, if Pupil A was behaving as described by Mr Sunter, 'we would want to remove him as quickly as possible. Every incident you had to 15
deal with differently. There were no set rules and no set plan as to how to deal with that child'. In these circumstances, the panel could not be satisfied that the manner in which Mr Sunter dealt with Pupil A was inappropriate. In relation to 3a iii, Mr Sunter does not accept that he acted inappropriately in refusing offers of assistance. The panel accepts his explanation of the exercise of his judgment in declining the offers of support from his colleagues. In relation to 3a iv, the panel is satisfied that, Mr Sunter's failure to complete a serious incident form was inappropriate. Accordingly, allegation 3a is proved in relation to 3a iv only. b. On a date unknown but different to that as set out at 3(a) above. Stood over Pupil A and shouted at him. The panel noted that Witness B did not provide a proper account of this alleged incident until interviewed as part of the School's investigation. No contemporaneous account was made and no action was taken by Witness B at the time. Mr Sunter denies the allegation. The panel is not satisfied that the evidence presented is sufficient to prove this allegation on the balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the panel finds 3b not proved. 4. Behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that you made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct. Mr Sunter admits that he behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that he made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct. The panel noted that on one occasion, Mr Sunter referred to Witness A as 'RE girl' on more than one occasion over the course of an afternoon and she asked him to stop. The panel also noted that, when interviewed as part of the School's investigation, Mr Sunter admitted that he had joked with another member of staff about the age difference between that member of staff and her partner. The panel finds allegation 4 proved based on Mr Sunter's admission and these two examples. 5. Failed to follow management instructions and/or attempted to impede the School's investigation into your conduct in that you: a. On 2 July 2015 you were specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the whistleblowing process was confidential and you should only share it with your representative; b. In a letter dated 2 July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was strictly confidential and, other than obtaining appropriate trade union 16
and/or legal advice, you were not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter of CH; c. Contrary to those instructions, you discussed the investigation with the School Administrator. Mr Sunter admits that on 2nd July 2015 he was specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the whistleblowing process was confidential and he should only share it with his representative. Mr Sunter also admits that in a letter dated 2nd July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was strictly confidential and other than obtaining appropriate trade union and/or legal advice he was not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter. Finally, Mr Sunter admits that, contrary to those instructions, he discussed the investigation with the School Administrator. Mr Sunter admits that he failed to follow management instructions, but denies that his actions were an attempt to impede the School's investigation. The panel finds 5a, b and c proved on the basis that Mr Sunter failed to follow management instructions. The panel did not find that Mr Sunter's actions were an attempt to impede the School's investigation into his conduct.
Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found allegations 1a and 1d, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h, 3a iv, 4 and 5a to c to have been proven, the panel has gone on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Sunter admits unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has taken these admissions into account, but has made its own determination. In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”. The panel has had regard to the definition of unacceptable professional conduct as misconduct of a serious nature which falls significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Further, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute should be viewed in a similar way. The panel first considered the conduct found proven in allegation 1. The panel is satisfied that, in failing to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finances in 1a, Mr Sunter breached Part Two of the Teachers' Standards in that he:
17
Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school.
The panel is satisfied that the conduct in 1a amounts to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel then considered the conduct in allegation 1d. The panel is not satisfied that Mr Sunter's conduct in 1d involved a breach of the Teachers' Standards. The panel is not satisfied that, in isolation, Mr Sunter's failure amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel considered whether, taken together with the conduct found proved in 1a, the conduct could be regarded as unacceptable professional conduct. The panel concluded that the conduct was of a different nature to that found proved in 1a and, therefore, it was not appropriate to consider the conduct on a cumulative basis. Accordingly, the panel finds that unacceptable professional conduct has been established in relation to allegation 1, solely on the basis of the conduct found proved in 1a. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 2. The panel is satisfied that the conduct in 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h involved a breach of Part Two of the Teachers' Standards in that: Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by
having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions;
The panel is satisfied that the conduct found proved in 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h amounts to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 3a iv. The panel is satisfied that Mr Sunter's failure to complete the serious incident restraint form was a breach of the Teachers' Standards in that Mr Sunter:
Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school.
However, the panel was not satisfied that the failure to complete the form amounted to serious misconduct, falling significantly short of the standards expected of a teacher. The panel has taken into account the fact that this was an isolated failure and that Mr Sunter had completed a note detailing the incident. Accordingly, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established in relation to 3a iv. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 4. The panel noted that the National College produced only two examples of a joke. One was in the witness statetment of Witness A, who objected to Mr Sunter's use of a particular expression over 18
one afternoon. She asked him to stop. The panel had no evidence that he did otherwise. The other example was that Mr Sunter had joked with another member of staff about the age difference between that member of staff and her partner. This conduct is not serious misconduct and, therefore, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established in relation to allegation 4. The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 5a, b and c. The panel has taken into account the fact that Mr Sunter stated that he only spoke to the School Administrator as he felt desperate and had limited support outside of the School. It was not an attempt to impede the School's investigation. This conduct is not serious misconduct and, therefore, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established in relation to allegation 5. The panel, therefore, concludes that Mr Sunter is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in relation to allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h. In considering conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel has taken into account how 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 has taken account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way they behave. The panel therefore concludes, by reference to the findings above, that Mr Sunter's actions in allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h constitute 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 is 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 has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it is 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 has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice. The panel also acknowledged that there may be a public interest in an effective teacher being able to continue to practise in their chosen profession.
19
The panel has found a number of public interest considerations to be relevant in this case, namely the protection of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the findings of failing to adequately safeguard children. Similarly, the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Sunter were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel considered that a clear public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Sunter was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 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 Mr Sunter. In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Sunter. 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 proven. In the list of such behaviours, the following is relevant in this case:
serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;
These were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being appropriate. However, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating factors to militate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature of the behaviour in this case. The findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute that have been made against Mr Sunter were failures to act rather than deliberate acts on his part. Mr Sunter was not acting under duress, but the panel found that he was under considerable pressure and, furthermore, the support that was in place for him, as a newly appointed headteacher, was inadequate. The panel heard evidence from Witness F that a formal mentor system should have been in place for Mr Sunter. The informal system that was in place was neither sufficient, nor robust. In addition, there was a series of challenging staffing issues, including the departure of the Senior Teacher and constant turnover of staff in other positions in the School. The panel heard evidence that
20
recruitment of appropriate staff from the area was very difficult. Mr Sunter found himself undertaking a multitude of roles, including, at one stage, cleaning the School. [Redacted]. Having heard evidence from Mr Sunter, the panel accepts that the pressures he faced at that time, in his role as headteacher, in conjunction with his health issues, impacted on his performance as a school leader. Mr Sunter has stated that he has no intention to seek a position as headteacher in the future. Mr Sunter did have a previously good history and the panel accepts that the conduct was a consequence of the situation in which Mr Sunter found himself at the School. The panel has been presented with oral and written character evidence from a number of witnesses. Witness F was the headteacher at St Nicholas Church of England Primary School, where Mr Sunter worked between February 2001 and 2011. Witness F described Mr Sunter as a 'highly professional, dedicated, brilliant teacher who always has the best interests of the children at the heart of everything he does.' Witness F also said in her oral evidence that Mr Sunter was 'one of the best teachers that [she] has ever worked with.' Witness D, was a teaching assistant at Chestnut Street Primary School, where Mr Sunter worked as assistant headteacher between 2011 and 2012. Witness D described Mr Sunter's, 'great professionalism, kindness and excellent teaching/classroom management.' In addition, Witness E, who was a Parent Governor at the School, described Mr Sunter as a 'talented teacher'. The panel is not of the view that prohibition is a proportionate and appropriate response. The nature of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The particulars of allegation 2 found proved against Mr Sunter occurred in the period shortly before his suspension, when the pressure on him was intense. In light of the significant mitigating factors that were present in this case, as referred to above, the panel has determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order will not be appropriate in this case.
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 is published by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has not found all of the allegations proven. Indeed, even where they have found allegations proven, they have not found all of those allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In summary, the panel’s final position is set out below: 21
“The panel, therefore, concludes that Mr Sunter is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct in relation to allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h.” “The panel therefore concludes, by reference to the findings above, that Mr Sunter's actions in allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h constitute conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.” I have put from my mind all of the allegations where there was no finding of unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Sunter should not be the subject of a prohibition order. In this case the panel has found that Mr Sunter is in breach of the following standards: For 1a:
Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school.
For 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h
having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions;
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 or not 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 Sunter, and the impact that will have on him, is proportionate. In this case I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children. The panel has observed “There is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given the findings of failing to adequately safeguard children.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “public confidence in the profession
22
could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Sunter were not treated with the utmost 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 failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public 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 Sunter. I have read the mitigation considered by the panel. I have noted in particular the comments that include, 'highly professional, dedicated, brilliant teacher who always has the best interests of the children at the heart of everything he does.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Sunter from continuing that work. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments, “The findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute that have been made against Mr Sunter were failures to act rather than deliberate acts on his part.” I have also placed considerable weight on the finding of the panel concerning, “the significant mitigating factors that were present in this case, as referred to above.” For these reasons I have concluded that imposing no prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. I consider therefore that a prohibition order is not necessary in this case.
Decision maker: Alan Meyrick Date: 26 October 2017 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.
23
