Mr Damian Sunter: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

October 2017

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 4 - 6

C. Preliminary applications 6 - 8

D. Summary of evidence 8 - 9

Documents 8

Witnesses 8 - 9

E. Decision and reasons 9 -19

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 19 -21

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mr Damian Sunter

NCTL case reference: 15404

Date of determination: 19 October 2017

Former employer: Halton Holegate Church of England Primary School, Spilsby,

Lincolnshire

A. Introduction

A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the National College for Teaching and

Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 13 and 16 to 19 October 2017 at 53 to

55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Damian

Sunter.

The panel members were Mr Brian Hawkins (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs

Caroline Tilley (lay panellist) and Mr Martin Pilkington (lay panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors.

The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Ian Perkins of Browne Jacobson

LLP solicitors.

Mr Sunter was present and was represented by Ms Amanda Hart of counsel, instructed

by the National Union of Teachers.

The hearing took place in public, save in relation to evidence and submissions about

certain personal information relating to Mr Sunter, which the panel heard in private. The

whole hearing was recorded.

4

B. Allegations

The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 6

October 2017.

It was alleged that Mr Damian Sunter was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct

and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst working as the

Headteacher at Halton Holegate Church of England Primary School ("the School"),

between April 2014 and March 2016 he failed to maintain appropriate professional

standards in that he:

1. Failed to fulfil the role of Headteacher, including but not limited to, that he:

a. Failed to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finance;

b. Inappropriately delegated his teaching duties to a Teaching Assistant;

c. Failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy;

d. Failed to provide appropriate support and review of the School's Newly

Qualified Teacher

e. Was absent from the School during school hours without reasonable excuse;

f. Fell asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions.

2. Failed to adequately safeguard children and/or staff in that he:

a. Failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils;

b. Failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan;

c. Encouraged JM to 'play down' an incident in which Pupil B hurt another pupil,

Pupil F;

d. Failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding measures

for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015;

e. Failed to ensure staff training was up to date resulting in a period whereby the

School was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first aiders;

f. On 9 June 2015 left the School's premises without a qualified teacher on site;

g. Failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours;

h. Left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was accessible to

children;

i. Failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by LK;

5

3. Dealt inappropriately with Pupil A, a vulnerable child, in that he:

a. On a date unknown in 2015:

i. Took hold of Pupil A by the arm in a manner incompatible with Team Teach

techniques;

ii. Behaved aggressively towards Pupil A:

iii.Declined assistance from other members of staff who attempted to intervene

to de-escalate the situation:

iv.Failed to complete a serious incident restraint form in respect of this incident;

b. On a date unknown but different to that as set out at 3(a) above, stood over

Pupil A and shouted at him.

4. Behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that he made

inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct.

5. Failed to follow management instructions and/or attempted to impede the School's

investigation into his conduct in that he:

a. On 2 July 2015 he was specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the

whistleblowing process was confidential and he should only share it with his

representative;

b. In a letter dated 2 July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was

strictly confidential and, other than obtaining appropriate trade union and/or

legal advice, he was not to discuss any aspect of the investigation with anyone

other than the support specified in the letter of CH;

c. Contrary to those instructions, he discussed the investigation with the School

Administrator.

Mr Sunter admitted the facts alleged in 1a to f, 2a to h, 3a iv and 4.

Mr Sunter denied the facts alleged in 3a i and ii and 3b.

Mr Sunter also admitted the factual particulars alleged in 3a iii, namely that he declined

assistance from another member of staff, but he denied that this was inappropriate.

In relation to allegation 5, Mr Sunter admitted the factual particulars in 5a, b and c and

that he failed to follow management instructions. However he denied that he attempted to

impede the School's investigation.

6

Mr Sunter admitted that his conduct in the allegations that he admitted amounts to

unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into

disrepute.

C. Preliminary applications

Application to amend the allegations and particulars of the allegations

An application was made by Mr Perkins to amend the wording of the allegations in the

Notice of Proceedings, which had omitted the overarching allegation of unacceptable

professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. This had been

included in the original Notice dated 24 May 2017 and the omissision did not extend to

the Statement of Agreed/ Disputed Facts. In addition, Mr Perkins said that the words, 'in

that he' were omitted from allegation 4 in the Notice of Proceedings. Mr Perkins applied

for these words to be added after the word 'occasions'. Ms Hart confirmed that Mr Sunter

did not object to this application and the panel agreed to the proposed amendments.

Applications in relation to documents

Mr Perkins and Ms Hart submitted a Statement of Agreed/ Disputed Facts, which had not

been included in the original bundle.

Ms Hart applied to admit an additional document consisting of a plan of the School. Mr

Perkins did not object to the admission of this document.

The panel agreed to admit both of these documents.

The panel was also presented with an additional bundle of documents that had been

agreed by the parties after the original bundle had been sent to the panel. Not all of the

panellists had been able to access this additional bundle. The panel requested that the

documents in the additional bundle be consolidated into a single bundle. Mr Perkins and

Ms Hart invited the panel to read limited parts of the bundle before hearing evidence from

the three witnesses called to give evidence on 13 October 2017. After hearing

submissions from the parties and receiving legal advice, the chair announced the

decision of the panel as follows:

'The panel heard an application by Mr Perkins and Ms Hart for the panel to read a limited

number of pages of the bundle of documents before hearing evidence from the three

witnesses to be called by the presenting officer. The panel determined that it would be

inappropriate and might lead to unfairness not to read all of the documents in advance of

any witness giving oral evidence. On that basis, the panel decided to read all of the

documents in the consolidated bundle before hearing any evidence. The panel has now

read all of the documents.'

7

Application for part of the hearing to be in private

Application was made on behalf of Mr Sunter that any detailed references to three

categories of personal information should be heard in private. [Redacted]. After hearing

submissions from Ms Hart and Mr Perkins and receiving legal advice, the chair

announced the decision of the panel as follows:

'The panel has considered the application on behalf of Mr Sunter that any references in

oral evidence or submissions to three categories of personal information, as identified by

Ms Hart, should be heard in private. There is a public interest in this hearing taking place

in public. However, the panel is satisfied that, in relation to the three categories of

personal information identified, the public interest is outweighed by Mr Sunter's right to

privacy. Accordingly, if it is necessary to make any oral references to those matters in

evidence or submissions, the panel will go into private session for that limited purpose.

Otherwise, the hearing will take place in public.'

Application in relation to witnesses on behalf of Mr Sunter.

Ms Hart made an application in relation to character witnesses who have provided

statements on behalf of Mr Sunter and whose evidence will be relevant to the mitigation

stage, should that stage be reached. Ms Hart referred to the statements of the relevant

witnesses in the bundle and invited the panel to indicate whether it would wish any of

these witnesses to give oral evidence and, if so, whether they might give evidence by

means of Skype or telephone. After receiving legal advice, the chair announced the

decision of the panel as follows:

'Ms Hart made an application in relation to character witnesses that might give evidence

at the mitigation stage, should that stage be reached. The panel does not consider it

appropriate to comment on whether any of those witnesses should give oral evidence.

This is a matter for Mr Sunter to determine in conjunction with Ms Hart. However, the

panel confirms that, if a decision is made that any of the character witnesses should give

oral evidence, the panel is prepared to allow their evidence to be given remotely by

means of Skype or telephone'.

Applications for admission of further documents

Ms Hart made an application for the admission of an additional document on behalf of Mr

Sunter, namely an account written by Mr Sunter on his computer at home after the

alleged incident involving Pupil A took place. The presenting officer did not oppose this

application and the panel agreed to admit this additional document. The document was

added to the bundle at section 5, pages 826 to 827.

After the three witnesses called by the presenting officer had given their evidence, Ms

Hart applied to introduce an additional document, namely a record of an interview of

Father Martin Faulkener. Mr Perkins agreed that the document is potentially relevant and

8

Mr Perkins did not assert that it would be unfair to admit it. The panel agreed to admit the

document, which was added to section 5 of the bundle as pages 828 to 831.

D. Summary of evidence

Documents

In advance of the hearing reconvening on 16 October 2017, the panel received a

consolidated bundle of documents which included:

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

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings, Response and Statement of Agreed and Disputed

Facts – pages 6 to 16(K).

Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 18 to 74.

Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 77 to 85, 87 to 105, 107 to 110, 121 to 123, 128 to

132, 135 to 137, 143, 145 to 146, 149 to 153, 155 to 156, 160, 164 to 165, 167 to 171,

173 to 174, 177 to 178, 182, 184, 200 to 201, 205 to 206, 214, 224 to 228, 231 to 232,

234, 236, 238 to 241, 246 to 259, 263 to 264, 268 to 273, 275, 294 to 299, 301 to 303,

324 to 328, 340 to 341, 343, 349, 351 to 354, 360, 373, 375 to 384, 386 to 392, 411 to

413, 419 to 425, 428 to 442, 448 to 452, 454 to 460, 464 to 467, 469 to 476, 488 to 492

and 497 to 520, 534 to 537, 551 to 553, 599 to 600, 602 to 603, 623 to 624, 626 to 634,

641 to 652 and 656 to 668.

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 676 to 831.

As the panel members had not had the opportunity to read all of the documents in

advance of the hearing, the hearing was adjourned on 13 October 2017 to enable the

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

of the documents prior to the resumption of the hearing on 16 October 2017.

Witnesses

The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting

officer:

Witness A, teacher, formerly at the School.

Witness B, teaching assistant at the School.

Witness C, formerly a teaching assistant at the School.

In addition, the following witnesses were called by Ms Hart:

Damian Sunter.

9

Witness D, former teaching assistant at Chestnut Street Primary School, who gave

evidence by telephone at the mitigation stage.

Witness E, former Parent Governor at the School, who gave evidence by

telephone at the mitigation stage.

Witness F, former headteacher at St. Nicholas Church of England Primary School,

who gave evidence in person at the mitigation stage.

E. Decision and reasons

The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:

The panel has carefully considered the case and reached a decision.

The panel confirms that it has read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance

of the hearing resuming on 16 October 2017.

Mr Damian Sunter qualified as a teacher in 2001. Between 2001 and March 2013, he

worked at three different schools. In the first two of these schools, he was appointed

assistant headteacher. In the third school, he was a year leader and joint phase leader.

In April 2013 he became headteacher at Halton Holgate Church of England Primary

School, Spilsby, Lincolnshire ("the School"). This was his first appointment as

headteacher. The School was a small three-class school in a rural location. In addition to

being headteacher, Mr Sunter was required to teach for two days each week.

In July 2015, Lincolnshire County Council began an investigation in relation to concerns

that had been expressed in a whistleblowing letter. During the course of the investigation,

various individuals were interviewed, including Mr Sunter himself.

Mr Sunter has admitted the majority of the allegations against him and the panel has

been provided with a Statement of Agreed/Disputed Facts. In relation to the allegations

that are disputed, the panel has heard oral evidence from three witnesses called by the

National College and from Mr Sunter himself.

Findings of fact

The panel's findings of fact are as follows:

1. Failed to fulfil the role of Headteacher, including but not limited to, that you:

a. Failed to fulfil your responsibilities in respect of the School's finances;

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's

finances. In particular, Mr Sunter accepts that, when he joined the School, his

understanding was that he would be responsible, with the Business Manager, for

preparing the budget and reporting on finance to the governors. The budget for the first

10

year of his headship had been set by the previous headteacher. When it came to setting

the budget in March 2014, Mr Sunter admits that he did not know as much as he should

have known about finances and that he left too much of the responsibility to the School's

Business Manager.

The panel finds 1a proved.

b. Inappropriately delegated your teaching duties to a Teaching Assistant;

Mr Sunter admits that he inappropriately delegated his teaching duties to a teaching

assistant at level TA1("TA1"). Mr Sunter was employed as a headteacher with a 0.4

teaching commitment, which meant he was required to teach for two days during each

working week. Mr Sunter accepts that he delegated his teaching duties to a TA1 on more

than one occasion, including during an Ofsted inspection, who was left in sole charge of

teaching a class of pupils. It was not in dispute between the parties that a TA1 should not

have been left in sole charge of teaching a class.

The panel finds 1b proved.

c. Failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy;

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to comply with the School's Sickness Absence Policy. In

particular, the School’s policy was that, following sickness, staff should not attend the

school for 48 hours. On 23rd June 2015 an Olympic swimmer was attending the school.

Mr Sunter had been sick the night before, but attended school contrary to the policy.

The panel finds 1c proved.

d. Failed to provide appropriate support and review of the School's Newly

Qualified Teacher

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to provide appropriate support and review for the School’s

Newly Qualified Teacher. In particular, Mr Sunter acknowledges that he failed to provide

the NQT with adequate induction, SEND information and formal mentoring meetings.

The panel finds 1d proved.

e. Were absent from the School during school hours without reasonable

excuse;

Mr Sunter admits that on more than one occasion he was absent from the School during

school hours without reasonable excuse.

The panel finds 1e proved.

f. Fell asleep at the School during school hours on one or more occasions.

11

Mr Sunter admits having fallen asleep at the School during school hours on one or more

occasions.

The panel finds 1f proved.

The panel then considered whether, in relation to each particular found proved, Mr

Sunter failed to fulfil the role of headteacher. In doing so, the panel focussed specifically

on Mr Sunter's role as headteacher. The panel is satisfied that the conduct in particulars

a and d involved the role of headteacher, but not the conduct in particulars b, c, e and f.

Accordingly, allegation 1 is proved only in relation to 1a and 1d.

2. Failed to adequately safeguard children and/or staff in that you:

a. Failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for statemented pupils;

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure adequate 1:1 support at all times for

statemented pupils. In particular, two statemented pupils in one class were supposed to

be supported by two dedicated 1:1 supporters for 32.5 teaching hours per week. Mr

Sunter did not ensure that this 1:1 support was available to them at all times. Mr Sunter

permitted periods where the two pupils had to share a single supporter between them

and failed to provide adequate cover when supporters were on leave. The panel noted

that one of the statemented pupils was regarded as a physical danger to himself and

others.

The panel finds 2a proved.

b. Failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan;

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to complete, review and/or update a critical incident plan.

In particular, Mr Sunter admits that he was responsible for the critical incident plan and

failed to modify it during his time as headteacher with the effect that it was no longer up

to date or fit for purpose. In 2015 the critical incident plan named individuals who had not

worked at the school for two years. The panel has noted that, in his oral evidence, Mr

Sunter stated that he had developed a business continuity plan which would form part of

a critical incident plan.

The panel finds 2b proved.

c. Encouraged Individual A to 'play down' an incident in which Pupil B hurt

another pupil, Pupil F;

Mr Sunter admits that he encouraged a member of staff to 'play down’ to Pupil F’s

parents an incident on 6th July 2015 in which Pupil B hurt Pupil F’s eye with a Lego brick.

The incident was reported to Mr Sunter who then attended the scene. Mr Sunter admits

that he instructed the Teaching Assistant to give a truthful account of what had happened

12

to Pupil F’s parents but to “play down” Pupil B’s actions. Mr Sunter states that he had not

initially realised that the Lego brick had been thrown deliberately.

The panel finds 2c proved.

d. Failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive safeguarding

measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015;

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to complete a risk assessment or take proactive

safeguarding measures for a school trip to the seaside in July 2015. However, Mr Sunter

states that the school trip occurred subsequent to his suspension and avers that, had he

not been suspended, he would have carried out a risk assessment. In particular, Mr

Sunter had permitted a school trip for pupils to Mablethorpe beach. After Mr Sunter’s

suspension, the School discovered that the trip was going to proceed without any risk

assessment and that drivers who were to transport pupils were not insured to do and had

to rectify these issues the day before the trip.

The panel finds 2d proved.

e. Failed to ensure staff training was up to date resulting in a period whereby

the School was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first

aiders;

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure staff training was up to date, resulting in a

period whereby the school was without any qualified first aiders and paediatric first

aiders. In particular, Mr Sunter allowed staff’s first aid certification to expire without

organising suitable refresher training.

The panel finds 2e proved.

f. On 9 June 2015 left the School's premises without a qualified teacher on

site;

It is alleged that on 9 June 2015 Mr Sunter left the School’s premises without a qualified

teacher on site. In particular it is alleged that Mr Sunter left the school premises to attend

a meeting at another school. At that time it is alleged that there were no qualified

teachers on site and the school’s Administrative Assistant was on leave. It is alleged that

Mr Sunter left a 16 year old apprentice in charge of the school office and instructed the

apprentice to contact him in the event of any problems at the School. It is alleged that

there were no qualified teaching staff on site for 2-3 hours whilst Mr Sunter attended the

meeting. Mr Sunter has no direct memory of these events, but is prepared to accept

Allegation 2f on the balance of probabilities in light of the available evidence.

The panel noted the witness statements of Individual B and Individual C, both teaching

assistants, who confirm the above.

13

The panel finds 2f proved.

g. Failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school hours;

Mr Sunter admits that he failed to ensure the School's gates were locked during school

hours. In particular, Mr Sunter failed to implement any formal system for locking the

school gates whilst the caretaker was absent, which resulted in the school gates being

left open or unlocked on a number of occasions.

The panel finds 2g proved.

h. Left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which was

accessible to children;

Mr Sunter admits that he left medication in a drawer of the desk in a classroom which

was accessible to children. In particular Piriton and Paracetemol tablets were found in an

unlocked drawer in Mr Sunter’s classroom desk, which was accessible to pupils. Mr

Sunter stated that the Piriton tablets were his, but he could not account for the

paracetamol.

The panel finds 2h proved.

i. Failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by Witness B;

It is alleged that Mr Sunter failed to take action on child protection concerns raised by

Witness B. In particular it is alleged that, in December 2014, Witness B overheard a pupil

telling other pupils that “my Dad takes his belt off to me”. It is alleged that Witness B

reported this to Mr Sunter as a child protection issue. The Statement of Agreed/Disputed

Facts states that Mr Sunter has no direct memory of this report, but is prepared to accept

that it took place on the balance of probabilities given the evidence available. The panel

noted that, when interviewed as part of the School's investigation, Mr Sunter stated that

he did not believe that Witness B would lie about such a matter. This was a factor in him

not challenging her account. The panel recognised that, as a consequence of Mr Sunter's

admission, Witness B was not questioned about her statement in relation to this

allegation. Like Mr Sunter, the panel has no reason to believe that Witness B would

provide a false account of this particular matter. However, in order to find this allegation

proved, the panel has to be satisfied of the words attributed to the pupil and that these

gave rise to a child protection concern. No written record was made at the time and, as

far as the panel is aware, no other evidence exists. Furthermore, when the matter was

raised by Witness B as part of the School's investigation, there is no evidence of a

safeguarding referral being made or of any investigation being undertaken. Taking all of

these factors into account, the panel could not be satisfied that the alleged facts have

been proved on the balance of probabilities.

The panel, therefore, finds 2i not proved.

14

Having found the facts proved in particulars 2a to 2h, the panel considered whether the

proven facts represented a failure on the part of Mr Sunter to adequately safeguard

children and/or staff. The panel is so satisfied in relation to 2a and 2b and 2e to 2h.

In relation to 2c, the panel accepts Mr Sunter's explanation that he had not initially

realised that the Lego brick had been thrown deliberately. When the full situation became

clear to him, he took appropriate action. Accordingly, the panel cannot be satisfied that

Mr Sunter's actions failed to adequately safeguard children

In relation to 2d, the panel has not been provided with the date of the proposed trip by

reference to the date that Mr Sunter was suspended. Mr Sunter states that he would

have completed the risk assessment had he still been in school. In these circumstances

the panel cannot be satisfied that he would not have done so. Accordingly, the panel

cannot be satisfied that Mr Sunter failed to adequately safeguard children or staff in

relation to this trip.

Accordingly allegation 2 is proved in relation to 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h only.

3. Dealt inappropriately with Pupil A, a vulnerable child, in that you:

a. On a date unknown in 2015:

i. Took hold of Pupil A by the arm in a manner incompatible with Team

Teach techniques;

It is alleged that Mr Sunter approached Pupil A when he was on the playing field and held

him by his upper left arm and then escorted him off the field through the Key Stage 1 play

area and into a classroom whilst holding him in this manner. The panel heard evidence

from Witness B and Witness C, both teaching assistants at the time, who were on duty on

the playing field. The panel also heard evidence from Witness A, a teacher, who stated

that she was in a classroom overlooking the Key Stage 1 play area as Mr Sunter passed

with Pupil A. All of these witnesses described Mr Sunter holding Pupil A by his upper arm

as he escorted Pupil A. In his own evidence, Mr Sunter stated that he he used a Team

Teach technique to escort Pupil A from the field. In his oral evidence, he described this

as placing his arm under Pupil A's arm and placing his hand on Pupil A's lower arm to

guide the pupil. Although, the witnesses called by the National College referred to the

involvement of two people to undertake a Team Teach technique, they all accepted that it

was possible for a Team Teach intervention to be conducted by one person alone.

Although the panel was not presented with any manual or other documentatation in

relation to Team Teach techniques, Mr Sunter accepted that, if he had held Pupil A by

the upper arm in the manner described by Witness B, Witness C and Witness A, then this

was not in accordance with any Team Teach technique. The panel is satisfied, based on

the evidence of those three witnesses, that Mr Sunter did hold Pupil A by the upper arm

and that this was not compatible with Team Teach techniques.

Accordingly, 3a i is proved.

15

ii. Behaved aggressively towards Pupil A:

The panel is satisfied by the evidence presented that Mr Sunter 'frogmarched' Pupil A,

but not in an aggressive manner. In particular, the panel found that he did not 'drag' Pupil

A. None of the witnesses has referred to Mr Sunter shouting at the pupil. There is no

evidence of any injury to Pupil A. Witness C stated that Mr Sunter did not behave

aggressively towards Pupil A when she observed them in the classroom.

The panel is not, therefore, satisfied that the evidence presented establishes that Mr

Sunter behaved aggressively towards Pupil A.

Accordingly, 3a ii is not proved.

iii.Declined assistance from other members of staff who attempted to

intervene to de-escalate the situation:

Mr Sunter admitted that he declined assistance from members of staff. Although he

denies that Witness B offered her assistance. Mr Sunter admits that he declined offers of

assistance from Witness C, Witness A and Individual C.

Accordingly, 3a iii is proved.

iv.Failed to complete a serious incident restraint form in respect of this

incident;

Mr Sunter admitted that he failed to complete a serious incident restraint form. Mr Sunter

stated in his oral evidence that he completed a contemporaneous record of the incident,

which he says he intended to transfer to a serious incident form, but did not do this.

The panel finds 3a iv proved.

Having found the facts proved in 3a i, iii and iv, the panel considered whether the proven

conduct was inappropriate.

In relation to 3a i, Mr Sunter stated that he found it necessary to intervene after Pupil A

had fouled another pupil playing football. Mr Sunter stated that, after he had spoken to

the pupil, Pupil A started to growl and clench his fists and then moved away and refused

to come back. Mr Sunter stated that he was not comfortable with the level of anger

displayed by Pupil A and it was at that point he felt he had to intervene when Pupil A

refused to come off the field. In his oral evidence, Mr Sunter stated that Pupil A could, on

occasions, lash out. The evidence of the three witnesses called by the National College

confirmed that Pupil A was volatile. None of the three witnesses called by the National

College had observed what led up to Mr Sunter's intervention, but their evidence strongly

suggested that Pupil A was not co-operating and was refusing to leave the field.

Witness C said in her oral evidence that, if Pupil A was behaving as described by Mr

Sunter, 'we would want to remove him as quickly as possible. Every incident you had to

16

deal with differently. There were no set rules and no set plan as to how to deal with that

child'. In these circumstances, the panel could not be satisfied that the manner in which

Mr Sunter dealt with Pupil A was inappropriate.

In relation to 3a iii, Mr Sunter does not accept that he acted inappropriately in refusing

offers of assistance. The panel accepts his explanation of the exercise of his judgment in

declining the offers of support from his colleagues.

In relation to 3a iv, the panel is satisfied that, Mr Sunter's failure to complete a serious

incident form was inappropriate.

Accordingly, allegation 3a is proved in relation to 3a iv only.

b. On a date unknown but different to that as set out at 3(a) above. Stood

over Pupil A and shouted at him.

The panel noted that Witness B did not provide a proper account of this alleged incident

until interviewed as part of the School's investigation. No contemporaneous account was

made and no action was taken by Witness B at the time. Mr Sunter denies the allegation.

The panel is not satisfied that the evidence presented is sufficient to prove this allegation

on the balance of probabilities.

Accordingly, the panel finds 3b not proved.

4. Behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more occasions in that you

made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of Conduct.

Mr Sunter admits that he behaved inappropriately towards staff on one or more

occasions in that he made inappropriate jokes to staff in breach of the School's Code of

Conduct. The panel noted that on one occasion, Mr Sunter referred to Witness A as 'RE

girl' on more than one occasion over the course of an afternoon and she asked him to

stop. The panel also noted that, when interviewed as part of the School's investigation,

Mr Sunter admitted that he had joked with another member of staff about the age

difference between that member of staff and her partner.

The panel finds allegation 4 proved based on Mr Sunter's admission and these two

examples.

5. Failed to follow management instructions and/or attempted to impede the

School's investigation into your conduct in that you:

a. On 2 July 2015 you were specifically instructed by Cannon PC that the

whistleblowing process was confidential and you should only share it

with your representative;

b. In a letter dated 2 July 2015 it was specifically set out that the matter was

strictly confidential and, other than obtaining appropriate trade union

17

and/or legal advice, you were not to discuss any aspect of the

investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter of

CH;

c. Contrary to those instructions, you discussed the investigation with the

School Administrator.

Mr Sunter admits that on 2nd July 2015 he was specifically instructed by Cannon PC that

the whistleblowing process was confidential and he should only share it with his

representative. Mr Sunter also admits that in a letter dated 2nd July 2015 it was

specifically set out that the matter was strictly confidential and other than obtaining

appropriate trade union and/or legal advice he was not to discuss any aspect of the

investigation with anyone other than the support specified in the letter. Finally, Mr Sunter

admits that, contrary to those instructions, he discussed the investigation with the School

Administrator. Mr Sunter admits that he failed to follow management instructions, but

denies that his actions were an attempt to impede the School's investigation.

The panel finds 5a, b and c proved on the basis that Mr Sunter failed to follow

management instructions. The panel did not find that Mr Sunter's actions were an attempt

to impede the School's investigation into his conduct.

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

Having found allegations 1a and 1d, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h, 3a iv, 4 and 5a to c to have

been proven, the panel has gone on to consider whether the facts of those proven

allegations amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring

the profession into disrepute.

Mr Sunter admits unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute. The panel has taken these admissions into account, but has

made its own determination.

In doing so, the panel has had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The

Prohibition of Teachers, which the panel refers to as “the Advice”.

The panel has had regard to the definition of unacceptable professional conduct as

misconduct of a serious nature which falls significantly short of the standards expected of

the profession. Further, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute should be

viewed in a similar way.

The panel first considered the conduct found proven in allegation 1. The panel is satisfied

that, in failing to fulfil his responsibilities in respect of the School's finances in 1a, Mr

Sunter breached Part Two of the Teachers' Standards in that he:

18

Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices

of the school.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct in 1a amounts to unacceptable professional

conduct.

The panel then considered the conduct in allegation 1d. The panel is not satisfied that Mr

Sunter's conduct in 1d involved a breach of the Teachers' Standards. The panel is not

satisfied that, in isolation, Mr Sunter's failure amounted to unacceptable professional

conduct. The panel considered whether, taken together with the conduct found proved in

1a, the conduct could be regarded as unacceptable professional conduct. The panel

concluded that the conduct was of a different nature to that found proved in 1a and,

therefore, it was not appropriate to consider the conduct on a cumulative basis.

Accordingly, the panel finds that unacceptable professional conduct has been

established in relation to allegation 1, solely on the basis of the conduct found proved in

1a.

The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 2. The panel is satisfied

that the conduct in 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h involved a breach of Part Two of the Teachers'

Standards in that:

Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and

behaviour, within and outside school, by

having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with

statutory provisions;

The panel is satisfied that the conduct found proved in 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h amounts to

unacceptable professional conduct.

The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 3a iv. The panel is

satisfied that Mr Sunter's failure to complete the serious incident restraint form was a

breach of the Teachers' Standards in that Mr Sunter:

Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices

of the school.

However, the panel was not satisfied that the failure to complete the form amounted to

serious misconduct, falling significantly short of the standards expected of a teacher. The

panel has taken into account the fact that this was an isolated failure and that Mr Sunter

had completed a note detailing the incident. Accordingly, unacceptable professional

conduct has not been established in relation to 3a iv.

The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 4. The panel noted that

the National College produced only two examples of a joke. One was in the witness

statetment of Witness A, who objected to Mr Sunter's use of a particular expression over

19

one afternoon. She asked him to stop. The panel had no evidence that he did otherwise.

The other example was that Mr Sunter had joked with another member of staff about the

age difference between that member of staff and her partner. This conduct is not serious

misconduct and, therefore, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established

in relation to allegation 4.

The panel then considered the facts found proved in allegation 5a, b and c. The panel

has taken into account the fact that Mr Sunter stated that he only spoke to the School

Administrator as he felt desperate and had limited support outside of the School. It was

not an attempt to impede the School's investigation. This conduct is not serious

misconduct and, therefore, unacceptable professional conduct has not been established

in relation to allegation 5.

The panel, therefore, concludes that Mr Sunter is guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct in relation to allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h.

In considering conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel has taken

into account how 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 has taken 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 therefore concludes, by reference to the findings above, that Mr Sunter's

actions in allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h constitute 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 is necessary for the panel to go on to

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 has to consider whether it is an appropriate and proportionate

measure, and whether it is 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 has considered the particular public interest considerations set out in the

Advice. The panel also acknowledged that there may be a public interest in an effective

teacher being able to continue to practise in their chosen profession.

20

The panel has found a number of public interest considerations to be relevant in this

case, namely the protection of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the

profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct.

There is a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils given

the findings of failing to adequately safeguard children.

Similarly, the panel considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously

weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Sunter were not treated with the

utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

The panel considered that a clear public interest consideration in declaring proper

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

Sunter was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

Notwithstanding 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 Sunter.

In carrying out the balancing exercise the panel has considered the public interest

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

Sunter. 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, the following is relevant in this case:

serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the

Teachers’ Standards;

These were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being appropriate.

However, the panel went on to consider whether or not there were sufficient mitigating

factors to militate against a prohibition order being an appropriate and proportionate

measure to impose, particularly taking into account the nature of the behaviour in this

case.

The findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute that have been made against Mr Sunter were failures to act

rather than deliberate acts on his part.

Mr Sunter was not acting under duress, but the panel found that he was under

considerable pressure and, furthermore, the support that was in place for him, as a newly

appointed headteacher, was inadequate. The panel heard evidence from Witness F that

a formal mentor system should have been in place for Mr Sunter. The informal system

that was in place was neither sufficient, nor robust. In addition, there was a series of

challenging staffing issues, including the departure of the Senior Teacher and constant

turnover of staff in other positions in the School. The panel heard evidence that

21

recruitment of appropriate staff from the area was very difficult. Mr Sunter found himself

undertaking a multitude of roles, including, at one stage, cleaning the School.

[Redacted].

Having heard evidence from Mr Sunter, the panel accepts that the pressures he faced at

that time, in his role as headteacher, in conjunction with his health issues, impacted on

his performance as a school leader. Mr Sunter has stated that he has no intention to

seek a position as headteacher in the future.

Mr Sunter did have a previously good history and the panel accepts that the conduct was

a consequence of the situation in which Mr Sunter found himself at the School.

The panel has been presented with oral and written character evidence from a number of

witnesses. Witness F was the headteacher at St Nicholas Church of England Primary

School, where Mr Sunter worked between February 2001 and 2011. Witness F described

Mr Sunter as a 'highly professional, dedicated, brilliant teacher who always has the best

interests of the children at the heart of everything he does.' Witness F also said in her

oral evidence that Mr Sunter was 'one of the best teachers that [she] has ever worked

with.' Witness D, was a teaching assistant at Chestnut Street Primary School, where Mr

Sunter worked as assistant headteacher between 2011 and 2012. Witness D described

Mr Sunter's, 'great professionalism, kindness and excellent teaching/classroom

management.' In addition, Witness E, who was a Parent Governor at the School,

described Mr Sunter as a 'talented teacher'.

The panel is not of the view that prohibition is a proportionate and appropriate response.

The nature of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The

particulars of allegation 2 found proved against Mr Sunter occurred in the period shortly

before his suspension, when the pressure on him was intense. In light of the significant

mitigating factors that were present in this case, as referred to above, the panel has

determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order will not be appropriate in this

case.

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State

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 is

published by the Secretary of State concerning the prohibition of teachers.

In this case, the panel has not found all of the allegations proven. Indeed, even where

they have found allegations proven, they have not found all of those allegations amount

to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into

disrepute. In summary, the panel’s final position is set out below:

22

“The panel, therefore, concludes that Mr Sunter is guilty of unacceptable professional

conduct in relation to allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h.”

“The panel therefore concludes, by reference to the findings above, that Mr Sunter's

actions in allegations 1a, 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h constitute conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute.”

I have put from my mind all of the allegations where there was no finding of unacceptable

professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Sunter should

not be the subject of a prohibition order.

In this case the panel has found that Mr Sunter is in breach of the following standards:

For 1a:

Failed to have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices

of the school.

For 2a, 2b and 2e to 2h

having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with

statutory provisions;

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 or not 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 Sunter, and the impact that will have

on him, is proportionate.

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

children. The panel has observed “There is a strong public interest consideration in

respect of the protection of pupils given the findings of failing to adequately safeguard

children.”

A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present.

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

confidence in the profession. The panel observe, “public confidence in the profession

23

could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Sunter were not

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

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

all teachers and that failure to impose a prohibition order might be regarded by the public

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 Sunter. I have read the

mitigation considered by the panel. I have noted in particular the comments that include,

'highly professional, dedicated, brilliant teacher who always has the best interests of the

children at the heart of everything he does.”

A prohibition order would prevent Mr Sunter from continuing that work. 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, “The findings of

unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into

disrepute that have been made against Mr Sunter were failures to act rather than

deliberate acts on his part.”

I have also placed considerable weight on the finding of the panel concerning, “the

significant mitigating factors that were present in this case, as referred to above.”

For these reasons I have concluded that imposing no prohibition order is proportionate

and in the public interest.

I consider therefore that a prohibition order is not necessary in this case.

Decision maker: Alan Meyrick

Date: 26 October 2017

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

State.