Mr Romilly Edwin Lewis James Hunt: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

September 2018

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 4

C. Preliminary applications 4

D. Summary of evidence 6

Documents 6

Witnesses 6

E. Decision and reasons 6

Findings of fact 7

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

profession into disrepute 10

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mr Romilly Edwin Lewis James Hunt

TRA reference: 16748

Date of determination: 12 September 2018

Former employer: Bute House Preparatory School, London

A. Introduction

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

TRA”) convened on 10 August 2018 at 53 to 55 Butts Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry

CV1 3BH and 12 September 2018 at Coventry Conferences, The Techno Centre,

Coventry University Technology Park, Coventry, CV1 2TT to consider the case of Mr

Romilly Hunt.

The panel members were Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Brian

Hawkins (teacher panellist) and Professor Roger Woods (former teacher panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Danks of Blake Morgan LLP.

The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Andrew Cullen of Browne Jacobson LLP.

Mr Hunt was not present and was not represented.

4

B. Allegations

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

2018, namely that Mr Hunt was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or

conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst employed as a

Swimming Teacher at Bute House Preparatory School for Girls, he:

1. Developed and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with former Pupil A, in that he:

a. met up with her outside of the school setting on one or more occasions;

b. sent her text messages on one or more occasions;

c. sent her one or more Birthday cards;

d. sent her one or more personal letters/cards, including the following letters/cards:

i. a heart shaped letter/card which made reference to your love for her; ii. a letter/card which contained a cheque for £250.

e. engaged in on one or more phone conversations with her;

f. gave her one or more gifts, including, but not limited to:

i. A gold coin which was your mother’s; ii. An Easter egg; iii. A box of chocolates.

2. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1 above was sexually

motivated.

In the absence of unequivocal admissions from Mr Hunt, the panel determined that the

allegations were denied, as was unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that

may bring the profession into disrepute.

C. Preliminary applications

The panel considered an application from Mr Cullen to proceed in the absence of Mr

Hunt. Mr Cullen explained that the Notice of Proceedings within the bundle had been

sent to Mr Hunt's last known address with the necessary notice period having been

given.

Mr Cullen also provided an updated response to the Notice of Proceedings. Whilst

undated, this response from Mr Hunt did state that he did not intend to attend at the

hearing. This position was reiterated in a letter from Mr Hunt dated 8 August 2018.

5

The panel did note that there was reference by Mr Hunt that he had been under

'immense strain’ [redacted]. All references to these were however in the past tense and

there was no independent evidence that Mr Hunt was suffering with current ill health.

The panel was content that the Notice of Proceedings had been served in accordance

with the relevant rules. It appeared to the panel that, taking into account Mr Hunt's

responses to the Notice of Proceedings, an adjournment would not lead to his

attendance and there was an inherent interest in ensuring proceedings are concluded as

expeditiously as possible. This interest and fairness was as applicable to Mr Hunt as it

was to the TRA.

In all the circumstances, the panel allowed Mr Cullen's application to proceed in the

absence of Mr Hunt.

The panel next heard an application from Mr Cullen to amend allegations 1d and 1e. The

requested allegations did not alter the allegation but instead would mean the wording

more accurately reflected the evidence, including the content of the more recent

responses from Mr Hunt.

In the panel's view, it was in the interests of justice for the allegations to reflect the

evidence and, as the changes corresponded with Mr Hunt's position, would not be unfair

to him. The panel allowed the amendments to the two charges.

Mr Cullen's final application was to ask for further evidence to be admitted, specifically

responses from Mr Hunt and the screenshot of a text message sent from Mr Hunt to Pupil

A. Mr Cullen explained that the screenshot is already referenced within the bundle and

had only been provided to the TRA shortly before the hearing.

In respect of the screenshot, the panel was content that, in light of the previous reference

to the text message and that it was a matter clearly within Mr Hunt's knowledge, he could

have commented on it had he wished. The panel determined it was in the interests of

justice that it be entered into evidence. Similarly, the responses from Mr Hunt to the

allegations would clearly assist the panel in reaching a fair decision and it was also in the

interests of justice that these be allowed into evidence.

The panel considered an application from Mr Hunt that the hearing should be held in

private to 'protect my daughter, all the children and parent [sic] from school, the school,

the ex-pupils and parents of the school and the family'. Mr Cullen objected to the

application on the basis that Mr Hunt had not put forward any proper ground for the

hearing to be in private.

In the panel's view, the anonymisation given to Pupil A was sufficient to protect her and

the other reasons put forward by Mr Hunt for the hearing to be in private were insufficient

to persuade the panel that it was appropriate, especially when no live evidence was to be

called.

6

The panel did not therefore allow Mr Hunt's application and the hearing proceeded in

public.

D. Summary of evidence

Documents

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

Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 2

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 4 to 9

Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 11 to 75

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 77 to 78

In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:

Mr Hunt's completed undated Response to the Notice of Proceedings – pages 79

to 82;

Screenshot of text-message dated 28 March – page 83;

August 2018 correspondence between TRA and Mr Hunt, including Mr Hunt's

responses dated 6 and 8 August 2018 – pages 85 to 106.

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

hearing.

Witnesses

The panel did not hear any live evidence from any witness.

E. Decision and reasons

The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:

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

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

of the hearing.

Mr Hunt had been employed at Bute House Preparatory School ('the School') since 1995

in a number of roles and became a fulltime swimming teacher in August 2013. Pupil A

was a pupil at the School but was not taught by Mr Hunt although he did coach her in

sport to some extent.

7

For educational reasons, Pupil A enrolled at a new school [redacted], Pupil A's mother

contacted the School regarding a concerning letter that her daughter had received from

Mr Hunt. [redacted].

Following an internal investigation into the relationship between Mr Hunt and Pupil A, Mr

Hunt resigned from the School in August 2017.

Findings of fact

Our findings of fact are as follows:

The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you proven, for

these reasons:

1. Developed and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with former Pupil A, in that you:

b. sent her text messages on one or more occasions

The panel did not hear any live evidence on this allegation. Nevertheless, the panel had sight of the screenshot of text messages sent by Mr Hunt to Pupil A on 14 February 2017 and 28 March 2017, that included wording to the effect of Pupil A being beautiful and the text ending with an 'x', which the panel read as being a 'sign-off kiss'. The panel also noted Mr Hunt's admission that he had Pupil A's mobile number, which had been given to him by Pupil A's mother, and he had sent Pupil A a text message (page 59). In respect of the March 2017 text, Mr Hunt stated the content was "to make light of the situation…when I walked away from her." In the panel's view, it was clear that some text messages had been sent by Mr Hunt to Pupil A who was, at the time, a young teenager. There are clear boundaries that must be maintained between a teacher and pupil, which must be maintained even when the pupil leaves the school where the relationship began. Text messages that provide compliments to the pupil, one of which was sent on Valentine's Day, and finished with a kiss, cross the boundary and are inappropriate. The panel therefore finds this allegation proved.

c. sent her one or more birthday cards

The panel did not hear any live evidence on this allegation but noted that Mr Hunt admitted sending Pupil A a birthday card after she had left the School. Mr Hunt stated that he had obtained Pupil A's new [redacted] address from Pupil A's mother. In the panel's view, continuing to develop a relationship with a former pupil that commenced when a teacher/pupil relationship did exist, is inappropriate. For these reasons, the panel finds this allegation proved.

8

d. sent her one or more personal letters/cards, including the following letters/cards:

i. a heart shaped letter/card which made reference to your love for her

The panel did not hear any live evidence on this allegation but noted that Mr Hunt admitted sending Pupil A a "card in the shape of a heart and put two rose petals inside. I told her I loved her and said I will always love her" (page 61). Mr Hunt further explained that "I only referred to the word love, like a parent to a daughter" (page 90). In the panel's view, any reference of love being expressed by a teacher to a pupil or former pupil is clearly crossing the appropriate boundary and is amplified when that expression is contained within a heart-shaped letter or card. The panel therefore finds this allegation proved.

f. gave her one or more gifts, including, but not limited to:

i. A gold coin which was your mother’s; ii. An Easter egg; iii. A box of chocolates.

The panel did not hear any live evidence on this allegation but noted that Mr Hunt

admitted he gave all three items to Pupil A having gained Pupil A's mother's permission

to do so.

In his written response, Mr Hunt stated that the gold coin represented the fact that Pupil

A would one day win a gold medal and the Easter egg and chocolates were presents.

The panel determined that the giving of gifts by a teacher to a young pupil or former

pupil, especially a gift as personal as the gold coin, could only be viewed as part of the

development of an inappropriate relationship and the panel therefore finds this allegation

proved.

The panel has found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proven,

for these reasons:

1. Developed and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with former Pupil A, in that you:

a. met up with her outside of the school setting on one or more occasions

The panel did not hear any live evidence on this allegation. The panel's attention was drawn to Mr Hunt's correspondence dated 9 May 2017 in which he clearly admitted that he had met with Pupil A outside of the School on more than one occasion. The admission of meeting Pupil A was reiterated in Mr Hunt's correspondence dated 8 August 2018.

9

The panel was unclear as to the actual dates that these meetings took place, although it appeared they took place after Pupil A had left the School. Mr Hunt's correspondence also stated he had only met Pupil A in the presence of her parents or others. Whilst the panel considers that clear boundaries must be maintained between teachers and pupils, meeting a pupil outside of a school when her parents (and others) are present is not inherently inappropriate. In the absence of any evidence as to why the meetings were inappropriate, the panel does not find this allegation proved.

d. sent her one or more personal letters/cards, including the following letters/cards:

ii. a letter/card which contained a cheque for £250. The panel did not hear any live evidence on this allegation nor was it presented with a copy of the cheque. The panel did note that in the summary of an interview with Pupil A conducted with her new school's Designated Safeguarding Lead and Headmistress, Pupil A stated that Mr Hunt had sent her a cheque for £250 but 'wanted the donation to remain anonymous, just between him and [Pupil A]'. The panel noted that Mr Hunt admitted sending Pupil A a cheque in support of a charity for which she was raising funds, albeit he did not state the value of the cheque. In the panel's view, sending a cheque in support of a charity is not necessarily inappropriate. Whilst it was suggested that the donation was to remain 'anonymous', in the panel's opinion this was not an unusual occurrence with charitable donations and there was no evidence to whom the cheque was payable. In the panel's view, the TRA had not presented sufficient evidence to persuade it to the necessary standard that Mr Hunt sending a letter/card enclosing a cheque was inappropriate and therefore does not find this allegation proved.

e. engaged in on one or more phone conversations with her The panel did not hear any live evidence on this allegation but noted in the summary of Pupil A's interview, she stated that she had called Mr Hunt to wish him a happy birthday. Mr Hunt admitted that he had received the telephone call from Pupil A and assumed her mother had given Pupil A his number. Mr Hunt denied calling Pupil A on any occasion. In the panel's view, and in light of the lack of any specific evidence as to the content, a single telephone call that was made by a pupil to a teacher cannot be deemed to be inappropriate by Mr Hunt. The panel does not therefore find this allegation proved.

2. Your conduct as may be found proven at allegation 1 above was sexually motivated.

10

Whilst the panel determined that the relationship between Mr Hunt and Pupil A had

elements of inappropriateness, the panel also gave weight to the fact that the contact

instigated by Mr Hunt was sporadic, over a period of two years and seemingly with the

knowledge, to some extent, of Pupil A's parents.

Save for possible inference, there was no evidence put forward to substantiate that Mr

Hunt's conduct was sexually motivated any more than, for instance, it was just caring

acts that progressed beyond professional boundaries.

The panel does not therefore find this allegation proved.

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

Having found a number of the allegations 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.

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 is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Hunt in relation to the facts found proven,

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

Part Two, Mr Hunt is 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 an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Hunt amounts to misconduct of a serious

nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession save for

allegation 1(c) which, whilst the panel considered it inappropriate, it did not consider of

sufficient seriousness to amount to misconduct.

The panel has also considered whether Mr Hunt's conduct displayed behaviours

associated with any of the offences listed on pages 8 and 9 of the Advice and the panel

has found that none of these offences to be relevant.

11

The panel notes that the allegations took place outside of the education setting.

Nevertheless, the relationship that existed between Mr Hunt and Pupil A initially arose

from his role at the School and is therefore clearly relevant to his role as a teacher.

Due to the serious nature of the behaviour in consideration on more than one occasion,

the panel is satisfied that Mr Hunt's actions amount to unacceptable professional

conduct.

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 finds that Mr Hunt’s actions also 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 and having done so has found a number of them 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.

In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Hunt, which involved an inappropriate

relationship with Pupil A by means of occasional text and letter contact and the giving of

presents, there is a strong public interest consideration in pupils being protected and

ensuring that the public's confidence is maintained.

12

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

weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Hunt was not treated with the utmost

seriousness when regulating 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 Hunt. However, in light of the suggestion by

Mr Hunt that he may not continue as teacher, the panel considered this effect to have

less weight than for a teacher dedicated to remaining in the profession.

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

Hunt. 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, that which is relevant in this case is:

serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the

Teachers’ Standards;

Even though there were behaviours that would point to a prohibition order being

appropriate, 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 and severity of the

behaviour in this case.

There was no evidence that Mr Hunt’s actions were not deliberate although the panel

determined that the actions were ill-judged rather than there being any obviously dubious

motivation behind the contact with Pupil A.

There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Hunt was acting under duress but he did have

a previously good history and the panel accepts that the incident was out of character

The panel did note that within Mr Hunt's responses to the allegations, he explained that

at the time [redacted]. However, in the absence of any independent evidence on these

situations, the panel did not give these matters any weight.

The panel noted that Mr Hunt had admitted at the earliest possible opportunity that he

had crossed the professional boundaries that he was subject to as a teacher and

displayed an understanding that his conduct was inappropriate. He had also shown an

appreciation of the upset that he had caused to Pupil A and her family, and was

consistent in his expression of remorse in all of his correspondence to both the School

and TRA.

Those allegations found proved that amount to unacceptable conduct and conduct that

could bring the profession into disrepute are at the lowest end of the seriousness spectrum.

The contact which was initiated by Mr Hunt to Pupil A was only very occasional over a

13

lengthy period of time, was all remote in nature and there was no attempt to conceal the

relationship. There was certainly no discernible pattern of concerning behaviour as

opposed to behaviour that appeared naïve as to what was appropriate.

The panel first 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 is sufficient.

The panel is of the view that applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen

recommending no prohibition order is a proportionate and appropriate response. Given

that the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of the possible

spectrum and in light of the mitigating factors that were present in this case, the panel has

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

case. The panel considers that the publication of the adverse findings it has made is

sufficient to send an appropriate message to Mr Hunt, 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

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 found 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 made a recommendation to the Secretary of

State that Mr Hunt should not be the subject of a prohibition order.

In particular the panel has found that Mr Hunt is 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 an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

14

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Hunt amounts to misconduct of a serious

nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession save for

allegation 1(c) which, whilst the panel considered it inappropriate, it did not consider of

sufficient seriousness to amount to misconduct.

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 Hunt, 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 “In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Hunt, which

involved an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A by means of occasional text and letter

contact and the giving of presents, there is a strong public interest consideration in pupils

being protected and ensuring that the public's confidence is maintained.” A prohibition

order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present. I have also taken into

account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse which the panel sets out as

follows, “Mr Hunt had admitted at the earliest possible opportunity that he had crossed

the professional boundaries that he was subject to as a teacher and displayed an

understanding that his conduct was inappropriate. He had also shown an appreciation of

the upset that he had caused to Pupil A and her family, and was consistent in his

expression of remorse in all of his correspondence to both the School and TRA.”

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

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

profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Hunt

was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating 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

15

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 Hunt himself. The panel

say Mr Hunt had suggested, “that he may not continue as teacher”. The panel considered

this effect to have less weight than for a teacher dedicated to remaining in the profession.

A prohibition order would prevent Mr Hunt from continuing in the teaching profession

should he chose to do so. 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

seriousness of the misconduct. The panel has said, “Those allegations found proved that

amount to unacceptable conduct and conduct that could bring the profession into disrepute

are at the lowest end of the seriousness spectrum.” The panel went on to say, “The contact

which was initiated by Mr Hunt to Pupil A was only very occasional over a lengthy period

of time, was all remote in nature and there was no attempt to conceal the relationship.

There was certainly no discernible pattern of concerning behaviour as opposed to

behaviour that appeared naïve as to what was appropriate.”

I have placed weight not only on the panel’s views above but also that it says, “that applying

the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen recommending no prohibition order is a

proportionate and appropriate response.”.

In my view given that the nature and severity of the behaviour is at the less serious end of

the possible spectrum and in light of the mitigating factors that were present in this case, I

consider that the publication of the adverse findings is sufficient to send an appropriate

message to Mr Hunt, as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable and meets

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

I therefore believe that a published decision satisfies the public interest requirement

concerning public confidence in the profession.

Decision maker: Dawn Dandy

Date:

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

State.