Dr Clement Earle

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

Teacher's name: Dr Clement Earle

Teacher reference number: 8351924

Teacher's date of birth: 23 November 1958

Location teacher worked: Lincolnshire, east midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 June 2021

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Dr Clement Earle, formerly employed in Lincolnshire, east midlands.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email [email protected]

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Dr Clement Earle: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Dr Clement Earle Teacher ref number: 8351924 Teacher date of birth: 23 November 1958 TRA reference: 19013 Date of determination: 14 June 2021 Former employer: Freiston Hall School, Lincolnshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 14 June 2021 to consider the case of Dr Clement Earle (“Dr Earle”). The panel members were Chris Rushton (lay panellist – in the chair), Asma Majid (lay panellist) and John Martin (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Dr Earle was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded, save for part of the hearing relating to Dr Earle’s [redacted], which were heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 15 April 2021. It was alleged that Dr Earle was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. He was convicted on a guilty plea on 26th September 2019 at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court for the offence of running an unregistered school, (Freiston Hall). Dr Earle admitted to the facts of the allegation. However, Dr Earle did not admit that the facts of the allegation amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that the TRA complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 (1) a to c of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the notice of proceedings complied with paragraphs 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession, updated April 2018 (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 4.29 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel has taken as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel has recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones. 5 The TRA sent Dr Earle the notice of proceedings dated 15 April 2021 to his last known address. The panel considered the statement from Dr Earle outlining the reasons as to why he would not be attending the virtual hearing, [redacted] The panel also noted the statement from Dr Earle’s representative in an email dated 5 March 2021 where it was confirmed that “Dr Earle would not attend a virtual hearing or a hearing in person due to [redacted] however in order to facilitate the resolution of this matter, I confirm Dr Earle consents to this matter being heard in his absence”. The panel was satisfied that Dr Earle was aware of the proceedings and deliberately absented himself from attending the hearing. In addition, the panel did not consider there to be any prospect of an adjournment resulting in Dr Earle attending voluntarily. Dr Earle was not legally represented at the hearing and has not provided any indication that he would wish to adjourn to obtain legal representation. Dr Earle answered “no” when asked about whether he intended to be represented at the hearing in his response to the notice of proceedings. The panel had the benefit of representations made by Dr Earle to ascertain the lines of defence. The panel did not identify any significant gaps in Dr Earle’s documentary evidence. Should such gaps arise during the course of the hearing, the panel would consider whether the hearing should be adjourned for documents to become available and in considering whether the presenting officer had discharged the burden of proof. The panel was also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The case will proceed as a disputed case, and the panel will have to consider whether the presenting officer has discharged the burden of proof. The panel is also able to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. The panel recognised that the allegation against the teacher is serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teachers is required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The panel also recognised that an adjournment would have been of no benefit to Dr Earle. Taking account of the factors detailed above, the panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Dr Earle. 6 Excluding the Public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Regulations and paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This follows the panel’s concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s [redacted] being placed in the public domain. The panel took into account the fact that the hearing is proceeding in the teacher’s absence and exercised caution for such confidential matters relating to the teacher’s [redacted] to be placed in the public domain. The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(a) of the Regulations and the first bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that parts of the hearing should be heard in private, given the concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s [redacted] being placed in the public domain and the fact that the hearing is proceeding in the teacher’s absence. The panel therefore determined that any parts of the hearing which relate to the teacher’s [redacted] are to be excluded from the public hearing. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the case continues any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of referral and response – pages 2 to 22 Section 2: TRA documents – pages 23 to 110 Section 3: Teacher documents – pages 111 to 182 7 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses No witnesses were called to give evidence on behalf of the TRA or Dr Earle. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Dr Earle was headteacher of Freiston Hall School (“the School”) which was set up in or around April 2017. The School received a number of inspections by Ofsted, under section 97 and section 99 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 (“the Act”), in 2017 and 2018. The School ceased to operate by the September 2018. Dr Earle was convicted on a guilty plea on 26 September 2019 at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court for the offence of running the unregistered School. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You were convicted on a guilty plea on 26 th September 2019 at Lincoln Magistrates’ Court for the offence of running an unregistered school, (Freiston Hall). The panel considered Dr Earle’s admission to the facts of this allegation in his response to the notice of proceedings. The panel also considered the memorandum of entry entered into the register of the Lincolnshire Magistrates’ Court which set out D