Mr Mark Craster-Chambers

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 Mark Craster-Chambers

Teacher reference number: 8946716

Teacher's date of birth: 8 July 1966

Location teacher worked: Cumbria, north west

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 August 2022

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 Mark Craster-Chambers, formerly employed in Cumbria, north west.

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 Mark Craster- Chambers: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2022 2 C ontents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark Craster-Chambers T eacher ref number: 8946716 Teacher date of birth: 08 July 1966 TRA reference: 17634 Date of determination: 8 August 2022 F ormer employer: John Ruskin School, Coniston Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 8 August 2022 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Craster-Chambers. The panel members were Ms Alison Feist (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist) and Mr Nicholas Catterall (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Heselton of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Craster-Chambers was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded, save for parts of the hearing which were heard in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 22 April 2022. You have been convicted at any time of a relevant offence, specifically on 4 March 2021 you were convicted at Carlisle Crown Court for the following: 1. E ngaging in Sexual Activity while in a position of trust; 2. E ngaging in Sexual Activity while in a position of trust contrary to Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Craster-Chambers accepted that he had been convicted of the offences but did not accept the factual allegations behind the conviction. Preliminary applications Amending the allegations T he panel noted within the papers that Mr Craster-Chambers was convicted of 2 offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2000. This was also consistent with the dates of the offences that the teacher was convicted of (namely post 2000, but prior to the 2003 Act). The allegations make reference to Part Two of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Craster-Chambers was not convicted of any offences under the 2003 Act. Part 2 of the 2003 Act also relates to notification requirements under the 'sex offenders register' and other orders, not substantive sexual offences. Whilst Mr Craster-Chambers was subject to the provisions of Part 2, following his conviction, it was not correct to say that he had been convicted of an offence under that Part. The panel therefore considered its powers under paragraph 4.56 of the Disciplinary Procedures and whether the allegations should be amended to remove this error. The presenting officer invited the panel to make that amendment so that the error was corrected. Mr Craster-Chambers did not oppose this course of action. The panel also considered and followed the advice of the legal adviser. The panel considered that it was in the interests of justice for allegations to be drafted as accurately as possible in regulatory proceedings. The panel also considered that there was no unfairness to either party in making the amendment, as it made no difference to how either party intended to present their case. Accordingly, the panel removed the words "contrary to Part 2 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003" from the allegation. 5 Privacy T he panel has considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from all or part of the hearing. This follows a request by the teacher that the hearing should be in private. The panel has determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing. The panel has taken account of the representations made by Mr Craster-Chambers who gave reasons as to why he considered the public should be excluded from a discrete part of the hearing. Those reasons were that he would need to make reference [redacted] T he panel has taken 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 considers that the request for parts of the hearing to be heard in private, is a reasonable one given concerns about confidential matters relating to [redacted] being placed in the public domain. The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request runs contrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to a conviction of a relevant offence. In the event that the case continues any decision of the Secretary of State will also be in public. The panel considers that in the circumstances of this case that the public interest will be satisfied by these public announcements. Those public announcements will ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the standards of the profession are maintained. The presenting officer did not object to the application. Having considered the representations, the panel granted the application. The panel considered it was not contrary to the public interest for the only the parts of the hearing [redacted] to be heard in private. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: 6 Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 4 to 12 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 13 to 42 Section 3: Teacher documents – pages 43 to 63 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses There were no oral witnesses called by the TRA. Mr Craster-Chambers gave sworn evidence before the panel. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Craster-Chambers was employed as a teacher at John Ruskin School ("the School") from September 2001 to August 2005. Following his departure from the School, Mr Craster-Chambers went on to hold a number of other teaching posts. In 2017, a former pupil of the School made a complaint to the police that she had engaged in sexual activity with Mr Craster-Chambers, when she was [redacted]. Following a police investigation, Mr Craster-Chambers was charged with 2 offences of engaging in sexual activity (other than sexual intercourse) with a person under 18 when in a position of trust. Mr Craster-Chambers pleaded not guilty to the offences and was convicted after trial at Carlisle Crown Court and received a prison sentence. During the course of the investigation, the police made a referral to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: You have been convicted at any time of a relevant offence specifically on 4 March 2021 you were convicted at Carlisle Crown Court for the following: 1. Engaging in Sexual Activity while in a position of trust; 2. Engaging in Sexual Activity while in a position of trust; 7 Before the panel was a certificate of conviction from Carlisle Crown Court dated 4 February 2022 and signed by an officer of the Court. The details of the certificate set out Mr Craster-Chambers' name and date of birth and that he had been convicted on 4 March 2021 of 2 offences of engaging in sexual activity while in a position of trust. It further set out that on 16 April 2021 that Mr Craster- Chambers was sentenced to a 6 and 18 month period of imprisonment, placed on the Sexual Offenders Register for a period of 10 years and placed on the DBS Barring List. The sentencing remarks of [redacted] showed the sentences were to run concurrently with each other. Mr Craster-Chambers accepted that the details in the certificate were correct and that he had been convicted of those offences and served the prison sentence. However, Mr Craster-Chambers strenuously maintained his position that he was not guilty of committing the offences. In support of that position, Mr Craster-Chambers brought a number of issues to the panel's attention which he considered demonstrated that he was in fact not guilty. These included a letter from the Independent Office for Police Conduct ("IOPC") which had upheld a complaint he made regarding the police actions in the investigation. In addition, there were supportive letters from 2 people which he stated contradicted important parts of the prosecution evidence in the criminal trial. The panel took into account the guidance in the Teacher Misconduct: Prohibition of Teachers document, which states that "the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply". The panel took further account of the advice from the legal adviser in regard to seeking to 'go behind the conviction' and the provisions in the Disciplinary Procedures, which set out a procedure if Mr Craster- Chambers' conviction was ever subsequently quashed. The panel carefully considered the IOPC letter before it. The letter detailed that Mr Craster-Chamb