Maths Teacher Avoids TRA Teaching Ban Dispite Dishonesty Over £3,000 Recruitment Fee

The Client

Our client, an experienced maths teacher, was referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency following serious allegations concerning the recruitment of overseas teachers.

He had worked as a maths teacher at a London academy since 2016 and had subsequently progressed to become second in charge of mathematics.

The allegations were serious from the outset and involved admitted dishonesty and an attempt to obtain money from prospective overseas teachers. If a prohibition order was imposed, our client faced losing the profession in which he had built his career.

We were instructed before the case had been considered by the TRA decision maker and before any decision had been made to refer the matter to a Professional Conduct Panel.

The Allegations

The allegations arose from the recruitment of teachers from overseas.

It was alleged that our client had:

• falsely presented himself to potential overseas teacher candidates as a member of his employer’s recruitment team when recruitment was not part of his role;
• contacted prospective teachers and sent them his own recruitment-style documents;
• attempted to obtain payment from candidates in return for securing or recommending them for a work placement; and
• acted dishonestly.

The evidence included a document sent to prospective candidates which stated that, following a job placement obtained through our client’s recommendation, the candidate would pay him £3,000.

The allegations were therefore considerably more serious than a technical breach of an internal recruitment policy. They involved dishonesty, financial gain and the misuse of our client’s position in circumstances involving overseas teachers seeking employment in the United Kingdom.

Our Defence Strategy and Work

Our involvement began at an important stage of the TRA process.

The case had not yet been referred to a Professional Conduct Panel and it would have been possible to make extensive representations seeking to persuade the TRA decision maker that no referral should take place.

However, effective representation does not mean contesting every stage of a case simply because it is possible to do so. Having reviewed the allegations and the evidence carefully, our advice was clear. Given the seriousness of the admitted conduct and the strength of the documentary evidence, we did not consider there to be any realistic prospect of persuading the decision maker not to refer the case to a Professional Conduct Panel.

We advised our client that spending significant sums of money attempting to prevent an inevitable referral would not be in his best interests.

Instead, we recommended that he save his resources and concentrate on the issue that was ultimately going to determine his future career: sanction.

That required a very different strategy.

The question was no longer simply whether misconduct could be established. The real battle was whether, despite the seriousness of that misconduct, our client could demonstrate that permanently excluding him from the teaching profession was neither necessary nor proportionate.

We therefore began preparing for that issue well in advance of the hearing.

A central part of our work involved helping our client confront the seriousness of what he had done. His initial response during his employer’s investigation had not assisted him. He had provided an explanation suggesting that the £3,000 payment related to a property business. He later accepted that this account had not been truthful and that, at that stage, he had not developed meaningful insight into his conduct.

It was essential that his evidence before the Professional Conduct Panel did not simply contain expressions of regret or formulaic apologies. We worked with him to prepare a detailed witness statement addressing his misconduct openly and honestly. This dealt with his developing insight, the circumstances surrounding his behaviour, the impact upon the individuals concerned, the damage such conduct could cause to public confidence in teachers, and why his actions fell so far below the standards expected of the profession.

Importantly, he did not seek to excuse what he had done. He accepted responsibility, acknowledged his dishonesty and demonstrated genuine reflection on why he had behaved as he did and what needed to change to ensure that nothing similar could happen again.

Our client also undertook significant remediation, including professional development relating to ethics and professional conduct and structured reflective work.

Alongside that evidence, we obtained and prepared a strong body of character evidence from people who knew our client and his work as a teacher.

Those references demonstrated that the misconduct, serious though it was, sat against a very different wider professional history. He was described as a highly capable and committed teacher who was valued by colleagues and pupils and who had made a significant positive contribution to education.

Crucially, he had continued teaching following the events and there was evidence of his successful work with pupils, including vulnerable young people.

Our case on sanction was therefore focused and evidence-based: the misconduct was grave, but it did not follow automatically that our client needed to be prohibited from teaching.

The Outcome

The allegations were admitted and found proved.

The Professional Conduct Panel found that our client had falsely presented himself as being involved in recruitment, had attempted to obtain £3,000 from prospective overseas teachers in connection with work placements and had acted dishonestly.

The Panel found his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

It was therefore a case in which a prohibition order was a very real possibility.

However, the work undertaken in preparation for sanction proved critical. The Panel accepted that our client’s insight had developed significantly. It found that he now understood the seriousness of his actions, had accepted responsibility and had demonstrated genuine remorse.

It also placed weight on his reflection and remediation, the steps he had taken to address the underlying causes of his behaviour, his otherwise positive teaching career and the strong professional references provided on his behalf.

The Panel concluded that these factors significantly reduced the risk of repetition.

Despite the finding of dishonesty and the seriousness of the conduct, the Panel decided that a prohibition order would not be proportionate.

It therefore recommended that our client should not be prohibited from teaching.

The Secretary of State agreed.

The adverse findings were published, but our client was permitted to remain in the teaching profession.

A Strategic Approach to TRA Proceedings

This case demonstrates why defending a TRA investigation is not always about fighting every allegation or spending money making representations at every possible stage.

Sometimes the evidence means that referral to a Professional Conduct Panel is inevitable.

Recognising that at an early stage can be just as important as identifying a case which should be fought.

In this case, our advice was not to incur substantial legal costs making representations which had no realistic prospect of preventing referral. Instead, those resources and the available time were directed towards the issue which really mattered: building the strongest possible evidence on insight, remorse, remediation, character and future risk.

That strategy ultimately helped preserve our client’s teaching career.

Even where misconduct involves dishonesty and is sufficiently serious that prohibition is plainly under consideration, a teaching ban is not automatic. Properly prepared evidence demonstrating genuine insight, meaningful remediation and a low risk of repetition can make the difference between the end of a teaching career and being permitted to continue in the profession.

Comments from Jared McNally

“When the client instructed us, the evidence was such that I did not believe it was realistic to persuade the TRA decision maker not to refer the case to a Professional Conduct Panel.

There would have been little benefit to him in spending significant sums of money fighting a referral which, in my assessment, was inevitable. My advice was to preserve his resources and concentrate on the stage which would ultimately determine whether he could continue his career – sanction.

The allegations were extremely serious. This was a case involving admitted dishonesty and an attempt to obtain £3,000 from overseas teachers in connection with employment. There was an obvious and real risk of a prohibition order.

Our work therefore concentrated on helping the client demonstrate genuine insight rather than simply saying the right things. We prepared detailed evidence addressing his reflection and remediation and obtained excellent character evidence demonstrating the teacher and person he was outside this isolated period of misconduct.

The Panel recognised the significant development in his insight and remorse and concluded that the risk of repetition had been substantially reduced. Despite the gravity of the conduct, he was not prohibited from teaching.

This case is a good example of the importance of having a clear strategy from the beginning. Good representation is not about fighting every point regardless of prospects. It is about identifying where the real battle lies and putting the client’s resources and efforts into winning that battle.”

Jared McNally, Clifford Johnston & Co.

Clifford Johnston & Co is a leading defence firm in Criminal and Professional Disciplinary Law, based in Manchester and representing clients across England and Wales on a privately funded basis. We provide strategic advice and robust representation to teachers facing Teaching Regulation Agency investigations and Professional Conduct Panel proceedings.