Mr Mark Jarvis: Professional Conduct Panel Meeting Outcome Panel Decision and Reasons on Behalf of the Secretary of State for Education
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Mr Mark Jarvis: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2020 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 2 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mark Jarvis Teacher ref number: 3671802 Teacher date of birth: 20 February 1966 TRA reference: 18393 Date of determination: 28 September 2020 Former employer: Wisbech Grammar School, Cambridgeshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by video conference to consider the case of Mr Jarvis. The panel members were Ms Esther Maxwell (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Ian Carter (teacher panellist) and Mr John Armstrong (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Jarvis that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Jarvis provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted his conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Luke Berry of Brown Jacobson LLP, or Mr Jarvis. The meeting took place in private. 3 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 18 September 2020. It was alleged that Mr Jarvis was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: On or around 21 February 2019, he was convicted at Cambridgeshire Magistrates’ Court of the offence of battery contrary to s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sentenced to a fine. Mr Jarvis has admitted the fact of the allegation in a statement of agreed facts and that he has been convicted of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications The panel noted that since the date of the referral to the TRA in this case, new Teacher Misconduct Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession were published in May 2020 (the “May 2020 Procedures”). The panel understands that the earlier provisions contained within the Teacher misconduct disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession updated in April 2018 (the “April 2018 Procedures”) apply to this case, given that those provisions applied when the referral was made. Although the panel has the power to direct that the May 2020 Procedures should apply in the interests of justice or the public interest, the panel had received no representations that this should be the case. For the avoidance of doubt, therefore, the panel confirms that it has applied the April 2018 Procedures in this case. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 2 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Referral, statement of agreed facts, presenting officer submissions and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 12b. Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency (“the Agency”) documents – pages 13 to 79 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 80 to 118 4 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Jarvis on 10 March 2020. Decision and reasons The panel made its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Jarvis for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Jarvis was employed in the position of unqualified DT Teacher and Hockey Coach at Wisbech Grammar School from 1 September 2012 to 31 August 2018. Following an incident on 20 June 2018, Mr Jarvis was suspended from the school on 21 June 2018. He had resigned prior to this incident for reasons unrelated to this matter and his employment ceased on 31 August 2018 by expiry of his resignation notice period. Mr Jarvis was charged with assault by beating on 3 December 2018. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: On or around 21 February 2019, you were convicted at Cambridgeshire Magistrates Court of the offence of battery contrary to s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and sentenced to a fine. On 10 March 2020, you admitted the facts of this allegation in a statement of agreed facts. The panel has not been provided with the Certificate of Conviction but based upon the admission you have made, the panel has found this allegation proven. The panel noted that the statement of agreed facts records the factual background to which this conviction relates. You have agreed that, on 20 June 2018, you went to your classroom to take the afternoon registration of your form group. A pupil was chewing gum. You asked that pupil to remove the chewing gum and put it in your hand. You then asked the pupil to put his hands up and proceeded to launch a kick towards the pupil. You have admitted that your foot made contact with the pupil in the area around his thigh/ groin. You have agreed that you were originally charged with assault by beating on 3 December 2018. You entered a guilty plea on a particular basis that you did not intend to 5 kick Pupil A and that any contact was made on a reckless basis. The statement of agreed facts confirms that the court found that your actions were unintentional but reckless and that you were found guilty of reckless assault amounting to battery, contrary to s39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. You were ordered to pay fines of £616.00, costs of £135.00, compensation of £150.00 to the pupil and a victim surcharge of £61.00 to central funds. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Jarvis in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Jarvis was in breach of the following standards: Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions 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 noted that Mr Jarvis’s actions which led to his conviction were relevant to working with children and working in an education setting given that it was a pupil who was the victim of the battery, albeit a reckless, rather than an intentional, act. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Jarvis’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Jarvis’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the spectrum. 6 This was a case involving an offence of violence, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel found that the evidence of Mr Jarvis’s teaching proficiency to be positive and of note; that he was experiencing [redacted] and that he had since undertaken courses in behaviour management, safeguarding and child protection. The panel noted that it was agreed that the offence related to actions that were reckless rather than intentional. The panel noted the evidence of fellow pupils present at the time of the incident who referred to it having been “a bit jokey”, “not serious or aggressive”, that when Mr Jarvis spoke with the pupil he was “smiling and laughing, not aggressive”. This is compatible with Mr Jarvis’s account that the Magistrates recognised he did not intend to harm or injure the pupil and that witnesses present acknowledged that the incident was “horse play”. Mr Jarvis has expressed remorse for his actions and recognised that he made a serious error of judgement. However, the panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour within the school setting that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Jarvis’s ongoing suitability to teach.