Mr Giles Dominic Keen: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

January 2019

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 4

C. Preliminary applications 4

D. Summary of evidence 7

Documents 7

Witnesses 7

E. Decision and reasons 7

Findings of fact 8

Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute 16

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mr Giles Dominic Keen

TRA reference: 16971

Date of determination: 15 January 2019

Former employer: Lode Heath School, Solihull (“School”)

A. Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the

TRA”) convened on 14 January to 15 January 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton

Road, Coventry CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Giles Dominic Keen.

The panel members were Mr Melvyn Kershaw (former teacher panellist – in the chair),

Ms Fiona Tankard (teacher panellist) and Mr John Matharu (lay panellist).

The legal advisor to the panel was Mr Tomos Jones of Eversheds Sutherland

(International) LLP solicitors.

The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Samantha Paxman of Browne Jacobson

solicitors.

Mr Keen was present and was represented by Mr David Gray-Jones of 36 Group Chambers.

The hearing took place in public and was recorded.

4

B. Allegations

The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 31

October 2018.

It was alleged that Mr Keen was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or

conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that:

1. In or around 2017, he failed to conduct Edexcel Design and Technology controlled

assessments appropriately and/or in accordance with the Edexcel guidance, in

that he;

a) gave one or more pupils help and/or support which was beyond what was

permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;

b) allowed one or more pupils to work on another pupil’s controlled assessment;

c) directed and/or was aware that a member of staff was supporting one or more

pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;

d) directed and/or was aware that a work experience student was supporting one

or more pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;

e) on or around 19 May 2017 he submitted marks to the exam board in relation to

one or more controlled assessments prior to the controlled assessments being

finished;

f) signed one or more controlled assessment declarations, confirming that the

work was produced solely by a pupil when he knew or ought to have known

that this was not the case;

2. His conduct at allegation 1, as may be found proven, demonstrated a lack of

integrity;

3. In or around 2017, he abused his position of trust and/or acted dishonestly;

a. in that he instructed the work experience student not to disclose information in

order to conceal details relating to the administration of the controlled

assessments;

b. in relation to his actions as may be found proven at allegation 1f above.

C. Preliminary applications

Firstly, the panel considered an application from the teacher’s representative that the

hearing should be held in private.

The panel took legal advice on this issue and subsequently determined to exercise its

discretion under paragraph 11(3) of the Regulations and paragraph 4.57 of the

Procedures that the public should be excluded from the hearing for those parts of the

5

hearing in which references would be made to the teacher’s (and/or his family’s) health

and wellbeing.

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 the request for the hearing, or parts

of the hearing, to be heard in private, was a reasonable one given concerns about

confidential matters relating to the teacher’s (and/or his family’s) health and wellbeing

being placed in the public domain.

The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request ran contrary to the public interest.

The panel noted that it was required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the

facts had been proven and whether those facts amounted to unacceptable professional

conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In the event that the

case continued, any decision of the Secretary of State would also be in public.

The panel considered that in the circumstances of this case where the facts were so

intertwined with private matters relating to the teacher’s and his families’ health that the

public interest would be satisfied by these public announcements. These public

announcements would ensure that public confidence in these proceedings and in the

standards of the profession would be maintained.

The presenting officer applied for the evidence of the work experience student, referred

to in allegation 1d, to be given by video-link. The presenting officer explained that the

work experience student in question was unable to attend the hearing in person as he

was attending a compulsory college apprenticeship course in Doncaster. As such, the

work experience student was not in close proximity to the hearing venue and therefore,

he would have to give his evidence during his lunch break at the college. The presenting

officer explained that she had only been made aware of the work experience student’s

unavailability at short notice.

The teacher’s representative objected to the application.

The panel received legal advice on this issue.

The panel considered whether the work experience student fell within the category of

vulnerable witnesses which is defined in paragraph 4.71 of the Procedures as being a

person whose “quality of evidence is likely to be adversely affected at a hearing”. The

panel noted the examples of witnesses that require special consideration and considered

that the work experience student’s circumstances was not akin to those examples, and

the panel considered that those circumstances would not impact upon the quality of the

work experience student’s evidence.

6

However, the panel noted that pursuant to paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel

may admit any evidence where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to

be relevant to the case.

The panel therefore considered it had a discretion as to whether to allow the work

experience student to give evidence by video-link, given the distance the witness would

have to travel to Coventry and the witness’ college commitments. In exercising that

discretion, the panel balanced its obligation to ensure that Mr Keen was not put at an

unfair disadvantage, as against the panel’s duty in the public interest to investigate the

allegations in so far as possible consistent with fairness to Mr Keen. The panel also took

into account that there may be subtleties of tone or body language that might be lost via

the medium of video link.

The panel did not consider that it would be appropriate for the work experience student to

give evidence during his lunch break at the college. The panel noted that there may be

issues with getting a copy of the hearing bundle to the work experience student and that

there might be issues with the work experience student taking an oath. The presenting

officer could not guarantee to the panel that the work experience student would be able

to give his evidence in a quiet classroom and that he would not be interrupted. The panel

stressed that there needed to be some formalities in the work experience student giving

his evidence and that it would not be fair for the work experience student to have to give

evidence in such circumstances.

The panel noted that the TRA should have made prior, suitable arrangements for the

work experience student to give evidence by video-link, as soon as the presenting officer

had become aware that he would not be able to attend the hearing in person. The panel

noted that the TRA had made no contact with the work experience student’s college in

order to determine whether the student could be allowed to attend the hearing in person.

The panel also noted that the TRA had made no arrangements for a representative to be

with the work experience student when he gave his evidence by video-link.

In light of the above, the panel decided to refuse the presenting officer’s application.

Finally, the teacher’s representative made an application to admit an additional document

into evidence. The document was a character reference made on behalf of Mr Keen.

The document was not served in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 4.20 of

the Procedures, and as such, the panel was required to decide whether the document

should be admitted under paragraph 4.25 of the Procedures at the discretion of the

panel.

Under paragraph 4.18 of the Procedures, the panel may admit any evidence, where it is

fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel

was satisfied that the document could reasonably be considered to be relevant to the

case as it related to the issue of mitigation.

7

The panel noted that there was a distinction to be drawn between the situation when a

presenting officer seeks to rely upon hearsay evidence, and the current situation when it

is the teacher’s representative seeking to introduce hearsay evidence, without the

witness being in attendance. The former invokes considerations relating to the teacher’s

right to a fair hearing, whereas the latter does not, although there remains a question of

the fairness between the parties. The panel had regard to whether it would be a sufficient

safeguard for a hearsay warning to be given before the panel’s determination on the

facts. The panel was satisfied that any imbalance caused to the presenting officer in

being unable to cross-examine the witness could be addressed by the panel’s decision in

due course as to what weight it should attach to the evidence, if such evidence was

admitted.

By reason of the above, the panel decided to admit the document into evidence. The

document was admitted into section 5 of the hearing bundle index (“Teacher

Documents”) at page 361.

D. Summary of evidence

Documents

In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included:

Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2-4

Section 2: Notice of proceedings, response and statement of agreed facts – pages 6-20

Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22-23

Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25-351

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 353-360.

In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:

Character reference on behalf of Mr Keen – page 361.

The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents.

Witnesses

The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Keen. No further witnesses were called by the

teacher’s representative or by the presenting officer.

E. Decision and reasons

The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:

8

The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision.

The panel confirmed that it had read all of the documents provided in the bundle in

advance of the hearing and the additional document produced during the hearing.

Mr Keen was employed at the School as a resistant materials teacher from 1 September

2013. On or around 19 May 2017, concerns were raised regarding suspected malpractice

committed by Mr Keen in entering marks to the exam board. On or around 23 May 2017,

the School’s deputy headteacher met Mr Keen in order to seek clarification as to how the

marks were decided upon. The School’s deputy headteacher was satisfied with the

explanation provided by Mr Keen at that meeting.

On or around 25 May 2017, concerns were raised by the School’s art and design

technician who was unhappy about signing a declaration form which authenticated that

Mr Keen’s year 11 pupils had worked independently on their controlled assessments.

The School’s art and design technician raised further concerns with the School on or

around 26 May 2017 that a work experience student had been instructed by Mr Keen to

work on year 11 controlled assessment material, which was not permitted by the exam

board’s guidelines.

When a senior leader and the art and design faculty leader went to visit Mr Keen to

discuss these concerns, they discovered the work experience student working on year 11

controlled assessment material. The student was instructed to stop working on the

controlled assessment material and the controlled assessment material was

subsequently removed from the classroom. Mr Keen allegedly told the work experience

student to “keep quiet” about what had happened.

Mr Keen was suspended on 9 June 2017 pending an internal disciplinary investigation.

Mr Keen left the School as part of a confidential settlement agreement on 30 November

2017.

Findings of fact

The panel received and accepted advice from the legal adviser that in considering the

question of dishonesty in allegation 3, it should first consider the defendant’s state of

knowledge and belief as to the facts and secondly, whether that state of mind was

dishonest, determining this by applying the standards of the ordinary honest person.

The panel’s findings of fact are as follows:

The panel found the following particulars of the allegations proven, for these reasons:

9

1. In or around 2017, you failed to conduct Edexcel Design and Technology

controlled assessments appropriately and/or in accordance with the Edexcel

guidance, in that you;

a. gave one or more pupils help and/or support which was beyond what

was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines;

The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen gave one or more

pupils help and/or support which was beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s

guidelines.

In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Keen admitted that during the 2016/2017 academic

year, on several evenings he worked on the controlled assessment projects, when pupils

were not present. He acknowledged that he cut objects and glued parts of controlled

assessment material on behalf of his pupils.

The panel noted that this was consistent with the evidence given previously by Mr Keen

in the school’s disciplinary investigation meeting which took place on 15 June 2017. In

that meeting, Mr Keen admitted that some of the work requiring laser cuts was done by

himself and that he had worked on his students’ assessment material without the pupils

being present. Similarly, the school’s design and technology technician stated in his

witness meeting of 12 June 2017 that Mr Keen often worked on the students’ projects

“without pupils present.”

In his oral testimony, Mr Keen admitted giving pupils help and support which was beyond

that permitted by the exam board’s guidelines. Mr Keen stated that he had done this in

order to assist his pupils who had fallen behind as a result of the school’s laser cutter

being broken and the school having poor resistant material equipment. Additionally, the

panel heard evidence that ordered material such as dowel rods had not arrived in time for

the pupils to complete their work and therefore, this work was completed for them by Mr

Keen. The panel determined that any assistance given by Mr Keen should have been

noted on the assessor witness statements submitted to the exam board.

In his testimony, Mr Keen admitted that he had made a “poor decision” in helping and

supporting his pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines but that

he had done so “in the best interest of the children” and with “good intentions”.

The panel therefore found this allegation proven.

b. allowed one or more pupils to work on another pupil’s controlled

assessment;

The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen allowed one or more

pupils to work on another pupil’s controlled assessment.

10

This allegation was admitted by Mr Keen in the statement of agreed facts. However, in

his oral testimony, Mr Keen disputed this allegation, stating that there had been an

“oversight” on his part in admitting this allegation.

The panel took into consideration the evidence provided by Mr Keen in his disciplinary

investigation meeting in which Mr Keen stated that “kids would come [into the workshop]

at lunchtimes, break times and after school so [ I was] not always there”. The panel also

noted that in that meeting, Mr Keen stated that “[the pupils] could have done work on

each other’s [work] and [I] may not have been aware as busy doing a lot of tasks (sic) at

once”. Furthermore, the panel noted the evidence provided by the school’s design and

technology technician who said in his witness meeting that Mr Keen’s pupils “worked

together” to complete each other’s work.

The panel heard evidence from Mr Keen about how he had responsibility for two

classrooms at a time and that consequently, he was unable to ensure that his students

were fully supervised at all times.

The panel also noted from his oral testimony that Mr Keen had allowed Pupil A to

undertake work on other pupils’ controlled assessments by allowing him to use the laser

cutter. Mr Keen claimed that Pupil A regularly visited the workshop, to the extent that it

became Pupil A’s “second home”. In Mr Keen’s submission, Pupil A was the only pupil

who was sufficiently trained to use the laser cutter and he became a de facto technician.

The panel noted the school’s technology and design technician’s evidence that pupils

helped each other and also noted Mr Keen’s submission where he stated, “I admit to a

lack of supervision at times that may have enabled students to help each other on

controlled assessed pieces.”

The panel took the view that Mr Keen had allowed one or more pupils to work on another

pupil’s controlled assessment.

The panel therefore found this allegation proven.

c. directed and/or was aware that a member of staff was supporting one

or more pupils beyond what was permitted by the exam board’s

guidelines;

The panel considers that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen directed and/or was

aware that a member of staff was supporting one or more pupils beyond what was

permitted by the exam board’s guidelines.

The panel noted that Mr Keen admitted this allegation in the statement of agreed facts. In

that statement, Mr Keen admitted that he instructed the school’s design and technology

technician during the 2016/2017 academic year to complete controlled assessments on

behalf of pupils on some occasions, including tasks such as:

11

a. making wheels;

b. cutting the dowling to fit the wheels on the right side;

c. making tops to fit on top of the objects;

d. cutting holes out of the wood so the pupils had slots to put things in;

e. making handles to push things; and

f. painting.

The panel noted that in Mr Keen’s disciplinary investigation meeting, Mr Keen was asked

whether he was aware that the school’s design and technology technician had worked on

the above tasks, to which Mr Keen replied that the school’s design and technology

technician had done “bits and pieces here and there.”

The panel considered that this evidence (provided by Mr Keen in the school’s disciplinary

investigation meeting) was consistent with the hearsay evidence given by the school’s

design and technology technician in his witness meeting. In that witness meeting, the

school’s design and technology technician admitted that he was directed by Mr Keen to

undertake work on the pupils’ behalf, which he felt was “wrong”.

In his oral testimony, Mr Keen argued that the school’s design and technology technician

had “over-exaggerated” the amount of work that he had actually undertaken on the

pupils’ controlled assessment material.

However, with regard to this, the panel noted that it was the school’s design and

technology technician who had raised concerns about Mr Keen in the first place.

Consequently, the panel was of the opinion that the school’s design and technology

technician would not have raised any concerns about Mr Keen, had he undertaken the

work of his own accord and had he not acted under the direction of Mr Keen.

The panel therefore found this allegation proven.

d. directed and/or was aware that a work experience student was

supporting one or more pupils beyond what was permitted by the

exam board’s guidelines;

The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen directed and/or was

aware that a work experience student was supporting one or more pupils beyond what

was permitted by the exam board’s guidelines.

The panel took into account the work experience student’s hearsay witness statement. In

that witness statement, the work experience student stated, “Mr Keen asked me to paint

one of the educational toys… I painted most of the toy, around 75%.” Additionally, in the

same witness statement, the work experience student claimed, “Mr Keen said to me that

12

we were going to try and complete a certain piece of work… Mr Keen placed it down to

one side and I drilled holes into the car.”

The panel noted that the work experience student stated that he had felt uncomfortable

about being directed by Mr Keen to work on the year 11 controlled assessment material

and that he had raised concerns about this with the school’s design and technology

technician. According to the work experience student, he didn’t feel “[undertaking work on

the controlled assessment material] was right”.

The panel felt that the work experience student’s hearsay witness evidence was largely

consistent with the work experience student’s investigation interview, which took place on

20 June 2017, in which the work experience student admitted to having worked on the

controlled assessment material under the direction of Mr Keen and without the year 11

pupils being present.

The panel noted that two senior leaders witnessed the work experience student working

on controlled assessment material when they visited Mr Keen’s workshop on 25 May

2017. This was admitted by Mr Keen in his oral testimony.

The panel heard oral evidence by Mr Keen in which he admitted to directing the work

experience student to undertake work on the controlled assessment material. Mr Keen

argued that the work experience student was not his responsibility as no formal

agreement had been signed to this effect.

However, the panel was of the view that Mr Keen did have a responsibility for supervising

the work experience student on a day-to-day basis as the work experience student was

primarily based in his workshop and that as a result, he owed the work experience

student a duty not to direct him to undertake work which was beyond what was permitted

by the exam board’s guidelines.

The panel therefore found this allegation proven.

e. on or around 19 May 2017 you submitted marks to the exam board in

relation to one or more controlled assessments prior to the controlled

assessments being finished;

The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen submitted marks to

the exam board in relation to one or more controlled assessments prior to the controlled

assessments’ completion.

The panel took into account the statement of agreed facts in which Mr Keen admitted that

after the submission of the controlled assessment marks on 19 May 2017, work

continued on the controlled assessment material until around 26 May 2017.

13

The panel heard oral testimony from Mr Keen in which he admitted to “tarting-up”

(meaning “tidying-up”) various pieces of work after he had submitted the controlled

assessment marks.

Mr Keen confirmed that the marks that he had submitted on 19 May 2017 were the marks

that the students would achieve, once their work had been “tidied-up”. As a result, the

marks submitted by Mr Keen on 19 May 2017 did not accurately reflect the quality of the

students’ work, on the date that the marks were actually submitted (being the 19 May

2017).

The panel also heard oral testimony from Mr Keen in which he admitted that only six out

of twenty-six pieces of work had actually been completed at the time that the marks were

submitted (being 19 May 2017).

The panel therefore found this allegation proven.

f. signed one or more controlled assessment declarations, confirming

that the work was produced solely by a pupil when you knew or ought

to have known that this was not the case;

The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen signed one or more

controlled assessment declarations, confirming that the work was produced solely by a

pupil when he knew or ought to have known that this was not the case.

The panel took into account the assessor witness statements signed by Mr Keen,

whereby all but three of the statements were ticked by Mr Keen confirming that the

pupils’ work was produced solely by those pupils.

In his oral testimony, Mr Keen admitted that he did not declare on the controlled

assessment declarations that he (along with the school’s design and technology

technician and the work experience student) had provided assistance to the pupils in

completing the controlled assessment material. This was also admitted by Mr Keen in the

statement of agreed facts.

The panel had already made a finding of fact that assistance was provided to the pupils

which was beyond that which permissible at the time of signing the controlled

assessment declarations (see above). Consequently, the panel found this allegation

proven.

2. Your conduct at allegation 1, as may be found proven, demonstrated a lack of

integrity;

As the panel found Mr Keen’s conduct at allegation 1 proven, it went on to consider

whether Mr Keen had demonstrated a lack of integrity.

14

The panel, having previously taken legal advice on the issue of “integrity”, noted that

examination boards rely on and trust teachers to administer, supervise and assess

pupils’ work correctly and that Mr Keen’s conduct at allegation 1 undermined the

examination process.

The panel noted that the concepts of “integrity” and dishonesty” are separate and distinct

and that integrity connotes an adherence to the ethical standard of one’s own profession

that involves more than mere honesty. The panel also noted that professional tribunals

must not set unrealistic high standards and should not require professional people to be

“paragons of virtue”. However, the panel determined that Mr Keen’s actions did

demonstrate a lack of professional integrity.

The panel also took into account that Mr Keen had admitted all of the allegations at 1,

save for allegation 1b. Consequently, the panel found this allegation proven.

3. In or around 2017, you abused your position of trust and/or acted dishonestly;

a. in that you instructed the work experience student not to disclose

information in order to conceal details relating to the administration of

the controlled assessments;

The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen abused his position

of trust and acted dishonestly in that he instructed the work experience student not to

disclose information in order to conceal details relating to the administration of the

controlled assessments.

The panel took the view that Mr Keen was in a position of trust. Although the panel

acknowledged that no formal arrangement had been made between Mr Keen and the

school with regards to the supervision of the work experience student, the panel favoured

the presenting officer’s assertion that Mr Keen was responsible for, and did owe a duty of

care to the work experience student as he was based in Mr Keen’s workshop. The panel

took the view that Mr Keen owed a similar duty to the work experience student (as a

former pupil) as he owed to the other pupils based in his workshop.

The panel took into account the work experience student’s hearsay witness statement in

which the work experience student stated, “Mr Keen asked me to keep quiet about what

had happened because he didn’t want it leaked out in the community.” The panel also

took into account the evidence provided by the work experience student in his

investigation interview in which the work experience student said, “[Mr Keen] said make

sure the doors are shut and if anyone asks, just say I’m helping him around the

workshop.”

In his evidence, Mr Keen stated that he did not have any recollection of telling the work

experience student to keep quiet about what he was doing. However, Mr Keen also said,

“I am not saying that this did not happen.”

15

The panel noted that in his oral testimony, Mr Keen admitted that he did in fact tell the

work experience student not to mention it to anyone, albeit there was some ambiguity as

to when this actually happened.

The panel also noted that this was consistent with the signed statement of agreed facts in

which Mr Keen admitted that he told the work experience student to keep quiet about

what had happened and admitted dishonesty. In that statement, Mr Keen acknowledged

that he was referring to the maladministration of the controlled assessments.

The panel therefore found this allegation proven.

b. in relation to your actions as may be found proven at allegation 1f

above.

The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Keen abused his position

of trust and acted dishonestly in signing one or more controlled assessment declarations,

confirming that the work was produced solely by a pupil when he knew or ought to have

known that this was not the case.

The panel took into account its previous finding with regards to allegation 1f that Mr Keen

had declared on the controlled assessment declarations that the pupils’ work was

produced solely by those pupils when he knew or ought to have known that this was not

the case.

The panel was of the view that in doing so, Mr Keen had abused his position of trust. The

panel was also of the view that an ordinary honest person would consider that he had

acted dishonestly.

Mr Keen admitted that he acted dishonestly in the statement of agreed facts by signing

one or more controlled assessment declarations, confirming that the work was produced

solely by a pupil when he knew that this was not the case. He acknowledged that his

conduct would be seen as dishonest according to the ordinary standards of a reasonable

and honest teacher in that he signed declarations which he knew were untrue and as

such, the panel was of the view that his conduct met the test of dishonesty set out in Ivey

v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd.

The panel favoured the presenting officer’s assertion over that of the teacher’s

representative. Mr Keen was in a position of trust and that as a result, he owed a duty to

both the pupils and the exam board to complete the controlled assessment declarations

in an honest manner.

The panel did not agree with the teacher’s representative’s submission that the teacher

had no contractual obligation to the exam board. The panel was of the view that the

exam board relied on teachers’ honesty in completing the controlled assessment

declarations and that Mr Keen had consequently compromised the examination process

and had breached his duty to both the pupils and the exam board.

16

The panel therefore found this allegation proven.

Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute

Having found all of the allegations to have been proven, the panel went on to consider

whether the facts of those proven allegations amounted to unacceptable professional

conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the

panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers,

which the panel referred to as “the Advice”.

The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Keen in relation to the facts found proven,

involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to

Part Two, Mr Keen was in breach of the following standards:

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their

own attendance and punctuality.

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Keen amounted to misconduct of a

serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.

The panel also considered whether Mr Keen’s conduct displayed behaviours associated

with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice. The panel found that none

of these offences was relevant. In particular, the panel did not consider that an offence

involving serious dishonesty was relevant.

However, the panel was satisfied that Mr Keen was guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct.

The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and

considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the

community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can

hold in pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the

way they behave.

The panel found that Mr Keen’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession

into disrepute.

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State

Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct

that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to

17

consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition

order by the Secretary of State.

In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order

should be made, the panel had to consider whether it was an appropriate and

proportionate measure, and whether it was in the public interest to do so. Prohibition

orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been

apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect.

The panel considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice

and having done so, found some of them to be relevant in this case, namely the

maintenance of public confidence in the profession; declaring and upholding proper

standards of conduct; and the interest of retaining the teacher in the profession.

The panel found that Mr Keen demonstrated a lack of integrity; that he abused his

position of trust and that he acted dishonestly. In light of this, a strong public interest

consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present

as the conduct found against Mr Keen was outside that which could reasonably be

tolerated. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could

be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Keen was not treated

with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

The panel considered that there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining

the teacher in their profession, since no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an

educator and/or he was able to make a valuable contribution to the profession.

In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered

carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order taking into

account the effect that this would have on Mr Keen.

In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel had regard to the public interest

considerations both in favour of and against prohibition as well as the interests of Mr

Keen. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition

order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proven. In the list

of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case are:

serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the

Teachers’ Standards;

abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) or violation of the

rights of pupils;

dishonesty especially where there have been serious consequences, and/or it has

been repeated and/or covered up.

Even though there were behaviours that would point to the appropriateness of a

prohibition order, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient

18

mitigating factors to militate against the appropriateness and proportionality of a

prohibition order, particularly taking into account the nature and severity of the behaviour

in this case.

[Redacted]

Mr Keen demonstrated insight and deep remorse for his actions and apologised for his

behaviour.

He indicated he was “deeply ashamed” of his actions and admitted that he had made bad

decisions and that he had let himself down. He claimed that he had learnt his lesson and

that he had already been punished significantly by having to leave his permanent job, by

having to endure the sudden loss of contact with friends and colleagues at the school

and by receiving a two year ban from administering Pearson qualifications. He indicated

that he had a family of four children to support and that he would struggle to cope

financially should a prohibition order be made against him.

The panel also accepted that there were problems with the school’s resistant materials

equipment which meant that Mr Keen’s pupils had been put at a disadvantage in terms of

completing the controlled assessment work prior to the deadline. The panel accepted Mr

Keen’s account that this had compounded the situation.

Finally, the panel took into consideration the character statements provided by the head

of technology at Mr Keen’s previous school and the head of expressive art in Mr Keen’s

current school in which he was praised as a teacher and was described as “reliable”,

“enthusiastic”, “highly motivated” and “committed”. The panel also took into consideration

Mr Keen’s previously good history.

The panel considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no

recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made

by the panel would be sufficient.

The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen,

recommending no prohibition order would be a proportionate and appropriate response.

Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour was at the less serious end of the

possible spectrum and in light of the mitigating factors that were present in this case (see

above), the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be

appropriate in this case.

The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it has made was

sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher, as to the standards of

behaviour that are not acceptable and meets the public interest requirement of declaring

proper standards of the profession.

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State

19

I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the

panel in respect of sanction.

In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the

Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.

In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those

proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring

the profession into disrepute.

The panel has recommended that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct /

conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an

action is proportionate and in the public interest.

In particular, the panel has found that Mr Keen is in breach of the following standards:

Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their

own attendance and punctuality.

Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Keen fell significantly short of the standards

expected of the profession.

The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a finding of dishonesty

and lack of integrity.

I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in

the public interest. In considering that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a

prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the

profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would

achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher.

I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published

finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession

into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider

whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have

considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Keen and the impact that will have on

him, is proportionate and in the public interest.

In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect

children. The panel has not commented on this. However the panel has mentioned that it,

“took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and considered

the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community.

The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in

20

pupils’ lives and that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way they

behave.

The panel found that Mr Keen’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession

into disrepute.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being

present in the future.

I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the

panel sets out as follows, “Mr Keen demonstrated insight and deep remorse for his

actions and apologised for his behaviour. ” The panel has also commented that Mr Keen,

“ indicated he was “deeply ashamed” of his actions and admitted that he had made bad

decisions and that he had let himself down. He claimed that he had learnt his lesson and

that he had already been punished significantly by having to leave his permanent job, by

having to endure the sudden loss of contact with friends and colleagues at the school

and by receiving a two year ban from administering Pearson qualifications”. In my

judgement, the insight and remorse shown means there is minimal risk of the repetition of

this behaviour. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my

decision.

I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public

confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “The panel found that Mr Keen

demonstrated a lack of integrity; that he abused his position of trust and that he acted

dishonestly. In light of this, a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper

standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr

Keen was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated” I am particularly mindful of

the finding of dishonesty in this case and the impact that such a finding has on the

reputation of the profession.

I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of

all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a

failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to

consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed

citizen.”

I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional

conduct, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as

being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this

case.

I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Keen himself. The panel

comment it, “took into consideration the character statements provided by the head of

technology at Mr Keen’s previous school and the head of expressive art in Mr Keen’s

current school in which he was praised as a teacher and was described as “reliable”,

“enthusiastic”, “highly motivated” and “committed”. The panel also took into consideration

Mr Keen’s previously good history.”

21

A prohibition order would prevent Mr Keen from teaching. A prohibition order would also

clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in

force.

In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the

insight and remorse shown by Mr Keen. I have also given weight to the mitigating factors

the panel outline and the panel’s view that the, “nature and severity of the behaviour was

at the less serious end of the possible spectrum.”

I have given weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr

Keen has made to the profession.

For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not appropriate or

proportionate in light of the circumstances in this case and agree with the panel that, “the

publication of the adverse findings it has made was sufficient to send an appropriate

message to the teacher, as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable and

meets the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”

Decision maker: Dawn Dandy

Date: 18 January 2019

This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of

State.