Mr Paul Allan

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 Paul Allan

Teacher reference number: 0780434

Teacher's date of birth: 21 June 1970

Location teacher worked: Kettering, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 1 to 3 August, 12 and 13 December 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 Paul Allan, formerly employed in Kettering, 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.

Mr Paul Allan: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 7 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Allan Teacher ref number: 0780434 Teacher date of birth: 21 June 1970 TRA reference: 016499 Date of determination: 13 December 2022 Former employer: Bishop Stopford School, Kettering Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by video link on 1 August 2022 to 3 August 2022 and 12 December 2022 to 13 December 2022 to consider the case of Mr Paul Allan. The panel members were Mr Jeremy Phillips KC (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Monique Harlin (teacher panellist) and Ms Nicola Hartley (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Anna Marjoram in respect of the hearing from 1 to 3 August 2022 and Mrs Luisa Gibbons in respect of the hearing from 12 to 13 December 2022, both of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Paul Allan was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save for the parts of the hearing discussed in the preliminary application below, and it was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 5 May 2022 as amended by the application of the presenting officer. The following allegations were made against Mr Allan: It is alleged that he is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that between 2015-2018: 1. He engaged in activity which was inappropriate and/or demonstrated a sexual interest in children in that he: a. accessed and/or were in possession of one or more indecent bestiality images; b. engaged in a discussion on an internet website relating to incest; c. made one or more internet searches for ‘Mommys teen teaching masturbation’ or used search terms to that effect. 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at allegation 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 3. He sought to conceal that he had accessed and/or were in possession of one or more indecent images of children, in that he: a. reinstalled the operating devices on his laptop on one more occasions; b. used Tor Browser which allows users anonymity on the Internet for purposes of concealing indecent images and/or indecent web searches and/or indecent web chats. 4. His conduct as may be found proved at allegation 3 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Allan admitted the facts of allegation 1 b, 1 c. He admitted having carried out the actions alleged in allegations 3 a and 3 b but denied the stem of the allegation. He denied allegations 1, 2 and 4. Mr Allan admitted that the facts of allegation 1 b amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute only. He denied that the facts he had admitted in relation to allegation 1c, 3a and 3b amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Prior to considering any preliminary applications, the presenting officer made submissions that the panel should apply the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary 5 Procedures for the teaching profession dated April 2018 (the “2018 Procedures) when considering this case, noting that a referral was made to the TRA in June 2017 regarding Mr Allan’s conduct. Mr Allan did not object to this. After receiving advice from the legal advisor, it was agreed that the 2018 Procedures would apply. The panel considered two applications from the presenting officer: 1. that the Notice of Hearing be amended; and 2. that a short adjournment is agreed on the first day of the hearing due to the availability of the TRA’s sole witness. The panel also considered an application from Mr Allan for the hearing to be conducted in private. Amendment of allegations An application was made by the presenting officer to amend the Notice of Hearing by adding wording before the facts of the allegations as follows: “It is alleged that you are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that between 2015-2018: …” It was proposed that this wording is included before the commencement of allegations 1- 4, under the subheading “The allegations”. The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel is required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher, and the parties have been afforded that opportunity. The teacher did not object to the application. The panel were concerned that this application was made at such a late stage in the proceedings, and through raising its own concerns regarding the drafting of the allegations, and exercised caution to ensure that there was no unfairness to the teacher. The panel noted the presenting officer’s submission that there had been an administrative error, with particular reference to the fact that the teacher appeared to have been notified of the allegations which included wording similar to the current proposed amendment in the Notice of Referral dated May 2021 (which the panel did not have sight of). The reference had therefore been disclosed to the teacher prior to the hearing. The panel considered that the amendment proposed does not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations as first put to Mr Allan. The facts of the alleged conduct 6 to be proved remain the same and, on that basis, there is no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. The panel had in mind that the interests of justice were in favour of the allegations not being defeated as a result of poor drafting. The allegation that Mr Allan’s behaviour constituted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, had previously been put to him, and those criticisms remained the same by the facts of allegations 1 to 4, regardless of whether this was explicitly and separately referred to. The panel also acknowledged that it was a fundamental part of the proceedings to consider the facts and then consider whether those facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and therefore Mr Allan should have been aware that this was the standard to which he was being assessed. The panel therefore agreed to the amendment. Adjournment The panel considered whether this hearing should be adjourned for the afternoon of the first day of the hearing on the application of the presenting officer, owing to a change in the availability of the TRA’s sole witness. The panel heard representations from the presenting officer and the teacher (who did not oppose the application provided it did not limit his opportunity to present his response to the panel). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under Paragraph 4.54 of the Procedures to adjourn the hearing following opening statements from both parties, until 2 August 2022, to enable the TRA’s witness to be available for the hearing. The panel had regard to the public interest in dealing with cases expediently but did not consider that a short adjournment would prejudice the teacher or obstruct reaching a conclusion in this case. The panel reassured Mr Allan that he would be given every opportunity to present his case as if the adjournment had not occurred. Hearing in private The panel 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 followed a request by the teacher that the entire hearing should be in private. 7 The panel 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 in part only. 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. The panel noted that there are concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health being placed in the public domain, and the teacher’s other submissions in relation to being able to fully contribute to the hearing. The panel balanced the reasons why the teacher has requested that the public be excluded against the competing reasons for which a public hearing is required. On this occasion, the panel considered that the request for the hearing to be heard in private is a reasonable one for part of the proceedings given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health being placed in the public domain. The panel noted that any departure from the