Mr Alexander Peredruk

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

Teacher's name: Mr Alexander Peredruk

Teacher reference number: 1572759

Teacher's date of birth: 27 April 1989

Location teacher worked: Rochdale, north west of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 3 to 4 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 Mr Alexander Peredruk, formerly employed in Rochdale, north west of England.

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.

Mr Alexander Peredruk: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons June 2021 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 16 3 Professional conduct panel decision Teacher: Mr Alexander Peredruk Teacher ref number: 1572759 Teacher date of birth: 27 April 1989 TRA reference: 0018704 Date of determination: 4 June 2021 Former employer: St Cuthbert’s Roman Catholic High School, Rochdale Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 3 June 2021 by virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Alexander Peredruk. The panel members were Ms Esther Maxwell (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Diarmuid Bunting (lay panellist) and Mrs Kulvinder Sandal (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Valentine of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Naomh Gibson, a barrister at Halycon Chambers. Mr Alexander Peredruk was not present and was not represented at the hearing. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 8 April 2021. It was alleged that Mr Alexander Peredruk was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, whilst employed as a teacher at St Cuthbert’s RC High School, Rochdale (the “School”). 1) Between approximately March 2016 and March 2018 he: a) searched for and/or b) downloaded and/or c) received and/or d) viewed one or more indecent images of children; and 2) His conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1 was sexually motivated. Mr Peredruk neither admitted nor denied the facts of the allegations, or that the alleged conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications At the outset of the hearing, the panel identified the following issues to be determined: 1 To proceed with the hearing in the teacher’s absence The panel considered an application from the presenting officer to proceed with the hearing in the absence of Mr Peredruk. Notice of the professional conduct hearing was sent to the teacher by post on 8 April 2021. The panel was satisfied that the TRA complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19 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 (the “Procedures”). 5 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 took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1 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 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 [2016] EWCA Civ 162. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel has firstly taken into account the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones. i) The panel accepted that the teacher in his written representations, filed by his legal representative, Mr Carr of Burton Copeland LLP, of 2 June 2021 confirmed that he did not wish to attend the professional conduct panel hearing and that he was content for the hearing to proceed in his absence. ii) The panel noted that the teacher had, since the Notice of Referral to the TRA on 13 September 2019, continued to engage with the TRA and the presenting officer through correspondence and communications by his representative. iii) The teacher had the opportunity to consider the evidence and obtain legal advice in relation to these proceedings. The teacher’s representative indicated in writing Mr Peredruk’s decision not to attend and confirmed that the hearing may proceed in the teacher’s absence. iv) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher are serious and that there is a real risk that if proven, the panel will be required to consider whether to recommend that he be prohibited from teaching. v) The panel noted that all witnesses relied upon are to be called to give evidence and the panel can test that evidence in questioning those witnesses, considering such points as are favourable to the teacher, as are reasonably available on the evidence. 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. 6 vi) 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 conduct alleged is said to have taken place during a period whilst Mr Peredruk was employed at the School. The School will have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forwards. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as is possible; and taking account of the inconvenience an adjournment would cause to the witness. On balance, these are serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 2 to 5 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 14 to 85 Section 3: Documents from Rochdale Borough Council – pages 86 to 213 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 214 to 215 The presenting officer submitted on 2 June 2021 written representations received from the teacher’s representative. These representations confirmed that the teacher was aware of the professional conduct panel hearing but did not wish to attend and that the evidence of the Detective from Greater Manchester Police (“GMP”) was agreed. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A, a Detective of GMP – Sexual Crime Unit. No other witnesses attended the hearing to provide evidence. The teacher did not attend and did not file any witness statements or evidence for the panel to consider in these proceedings. 7 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Since 1 September 2015 Mr Alexander Peredruk was employed as a teacher of chemistry at the School. In April 2018, GMP received intelligence via the National Crime Agency, that a person was believed to be accessing the internet to download indecent images of children. This report was linked to an address occupied by Mr Peredruk. Mr Peredruk was interviewed by the Police in October 2018. He resigned from his position at the School on 31 August 2018. No further action was taken by the Police. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: Whilst employed as a teacher at St Cuthbert’s Roman Catholic High School in Rochdale: 1. Between approximately March 2016 and March 2018 you: a) searched for and/or b) downloaded and/or c) received and/or d) viewed one or more indecent images of children The panel accepted that Mr Peredruk was employed as a teacher at the School in the period in which the allegations are made. The panel was provided with a Letter of Employment dated 10 August 2015 confirming the teacher’s start date as 1 September 2015. Mr Peredruk remained employed at the School until 31 August 2018, with his last teaching day being 20 July 2018. This was confirmed by the teacher in his Letter of Resignation (undated) to the School. The panel heard evidence from Witness A that the matters giving rise to the allegations took place in a period between March 2016 and March 2018. This was confirmed in a GMP forensic investigation report dated 22 August 2018. The panel heard evidence from Witness A that, following receipt of intelligence, a warrant was obtained to attend the address of the teacher to undertake a search of the property and to seize any equipment and devices linked to the Police investigations. A number of devices were seized which included mobile devices, cameras and computer technology. 8 All items were recovered from the teacher’s home. The panel was told that all devices were subject to forensic analysis by the GMP Digital Investigation Unit. A black computer tower which was retrieved from the teacher’s address contained artefacts that indicated a number of deleted files which contained names indicative of suspected indecent images of children. Witness A acknowledged that the original file contents and materials were not found