Mr Callum Mustard: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

January 2017

2

Contents

A. Introduction 3

B. Allegations 4

C. Preliminary applications 4

D. Summary of evidence 4

Documents 4

Witnesses 5

E. Decision and reasons 5

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mr Callum Mustard

Teacher ref number: 1249660

Teacher date of birth: 17 July 1991

NCTL case reference: 14824

Date of determination: 18 January 2017

Former employer: Shaftesbury Church of England Primary School, Dorset

A. Introduction

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

Leadership (“the National College”) convened on 17 to 18 January 2017 at the Ramada

Hotel, Butts, Coventry CV1 3GG to consider the case of Mr Callum Mustard.

The panel members were Mr Ian Hughes (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Margaret

Simpson (teacher panellist) and Mrs Julia Bell (teacher panellist).

The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Delme Griffiths of Blake Morgan LLP, solicitors.

The presenting officer for the National College was Mr Tom Day of Counsel, instructed by

Nabarro LLP, solicitors.

Mr Mustard was present and was represented by Mr Roderick Ball of Brewer Harding &

Rowe, solicitors.

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 12

August 2016.

It was alleged that Mr Callum Mustard was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct

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

teacher at Shaftesbury Church of England Primary School ("the School"):

1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional standards and/or appropriate

professional boundaries in that he:

a. Engaged in inappropriate communication via social media with

Witness B, who he believed to be Pupil A;

b. Accepted friend request offers from pupils via social media.

2. His conduct in allegation 1 was sexually motivated.

Mr Mustard has admitted the facts of allegation 1.

Mr Mustard has also admitted that his conduct in relation to allegation 1 amounted to

unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into

disrepute.

There were no admissions in relation to allegation 2, which was denied.

C. Preliminary applications

There were no preliminary applications.

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 to 3

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and Response – pages 5 to 11

Section 3: NCTL witness statements – pages 14 to 28

Section 4: NCTL documents – pages 30 to 174

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 176 to 361

5

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

hearing.

Witnesses

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

officer:

Witness A, the mother of Pupil A

Witness B, the auntie of Pupil A

Witness C, headteacher of the School

The panel also heard oral evidence from Mr Mustard.

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 of the documents provided in the bundle in

advance of the hearing.

Throughout the relevant time for the purposes of these proceedings Mr Mustard was

employed as a teacher at the School.

He commenced employment at the School on 1 September 2014 and subsequently

taught year 5 pupils. This was his first teaching post.

The panel heard that, in addition to his duties as a teacher, Mr Mustard started an extra-

curricular football club for year 5 and year 6 girls at the School ("the Football Club"). He

also assisted with the boys' football team.

Pupil A was, at the relevant time, a pupil in year 6 at the School. Pupil B was Pupil A's

brother and was in year 5.

Whilst Pupil A was not a pupil in Mr Mustard's teaching class she was a member of the

Football Club. Mr Mustard had taught Pupil B but only in relation to PE and swimming.

On 16 July 2015, a complaint was made to the police by Witness A, the mother of Pupil A

and Pupil B. This concerned an exchange of private messages on Instagram between Mr

Mustard and Witness B on the evening of 15 July 2015.

Mr Mustard had previously accepted friend requests from both Pupil A and Pupil B on

Instagram, having sought and received the permission of Witness A to do so.

6

On the evening of 15 July 2015, Witness B accessed Pupil A's Instagram account and

sent messages posing as Pupil A to Mr Mustard. Witness B did so having been notified

by Witness A of concerns she had regarding the relationship between Mr Mustard and

Pupil A. Mr Mustard responded to these messages.

15 July 2015 was a school night and the messages were exchanged from 9:13pm until

12:01am on 16 July 2015.

At the conclusion of the exchange the police were contacted by Witness A and Witness B

and an investigation was commenced.

Mr Mustard was arrested on 16 July 2015 and interviewed under caution. He was also

suspended by the School. Witness A, Witness B and Pupil A were interviewed by the

police during the course of their investigation.

The School was subsequently informed by the Police that a criminal prosecution was not

being pursued against Mr Mustard. Consequently, the School commenced an

investigation in relation to the allegations and disciplinary meetings took place on 16

November 2015 and 11 December 2015. At the conclusion of the School's investigation a

finding of gross misconduct was made, however that was not a matter to which the panel

had any regard.

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. You failed to maintain appropriate professional standards and/or appropriate

professional boundaries in that you:

a. Engaged in inappropriate communication via social media with

Witness B, who you believed to be Pupil A;

This allegation was admitted by Mr Mustard and the panel was provided with an agreed

statement of facts.

Mr Mustard accepted that he engaged in communications on Instagram on 15 July 2015

with Witness B, who he believed to be Pupil A, which were inappropriate.

Mr Mustard's evidence was that he had a suspicion that the author of the messages

could have been someone else. The panel did not accept this and considered that he

believed it was Pupil A with whom he was communicating at all times.

7

Mr Mustard accepted that in engaging in such communications he had failed to maintain

appropriate professional standards and failed to maintain appropriate professional

boundaries.

The panel carefully considered the content of the messages exchanged on 15 July 2015

between Mr Mustard and Witness B and the circumstances in which they were sent.

The panel noted that the messages were exchanged late on a school night and

addressed matters which were not related to School business. The exchange occurred

on a personal social networking platform and took place over some 3 hours.

The panel considered that both the circumstances of the exchange and the content of the

messages were highly inappropriate and went far beyond what was appropriate as

regards communications between a teacher and a pupil.

Accordingly, in light of the admission made and the evidence, the panel finds allegation

1.a. proven.

b. Accepted friend request offers from pupils via social media

This allegation was admitted by Mr Mustard who confirmed that he had accepted friend

request offers from both Pupil A and Pupil B on his personal Instagram account.

Mr Mustard's evidence was that he had the permission of Witness A to do so. This was

confirmed by Witness A in her evidence.

The National College confirmed that the particulars of allegation 1.b. was limited to

requests received from Pupil A and Pupil B and the allegation was not being pursued in

relation to any other pupils at the School.

Mr Mustard admitted that, in accepting the friend requests from Pupil A and Pupil B, he

behaved inappropriately, failed to maintain appropriate professional standards and failed

to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

The panel noted that Mr Mustard had received safeguarding training on 23 September

2014 and e-safety training on 17 March 2015 by way of a reminder to delete photographs

of children from devices and to keep his personal and professional online identities

separate. He had also received a reminder in March 2015 regarding the appropriate use

of his Facebook account namely not to participate in discussions about the School and

not to mention the School on social media. During the week commencing 15 June 2015

Mr Mustard was also asked to remove a photograph of the girls' football team which he

had posted on Instagram.

The panel considered that in all the circumstances it was inappropriate for Mr Mustard to

have accepted the requests from Pupil A and Pupil B. By doing so he had ignored School

policy and failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.

8

The panel considered that the fact that Witness A had provided consent in no way

alleviated the inappropriateness of his conduct. Mr Mustard did not appear to understand

that it is the teacher's duty to maintain professional standards no matter what a parent

may say. He had received training at the School in relation to safeguarding issues and

warnings in relation to his use of social media. He was also a newly qualified teacher

and would have likely received specific instruction as regards appropriate behaviour on

social media during the course of his PGCE studies.

Whilst Mr Mustard's evidence was that he did not consider there to be an explicit

prohibition regarding accepting friend requests from pupils on social media, the panel

considered that was something he ought to have known. The panel therefore considered

he was acting in such a way that failed to maintain appropriate professional standards.

Accordingly, in light of the admission made and the evidence, the panel finds allegation

1.b. proven.

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

for these reasons:

2. Your conduct in allegation 1 was sexually motivated.

The panel carefully considered all of the evidence and the submissions made on behalf

of the National College and Mr Mustard.

The panel heard oral evidence from Witness A, Witness B and Witness C.

Witness A gave evidence as to the wider background circumstances and detailed her

own relationship with Mr Mustard, which was described as flirtatious. They exchanged

private messages and photographs.

The panel considered Witness A's evidence to be guarded, less than open and, to some

extent, unhelpful.

Witness A indicated that she had concerns with regard to the relationship between Mr

Mustard and Pupil A. However the panel noted that she had difficulty particularising the

precise nature of those concerns and, prior to 16 July 2015, had not deemed it

appropriate to raise those concerns with the School. Whilst she was described as being

close to Witness B, her sister, she only raised the matter with her for the first time on 15

July 2015.

The panel heard she continued to exchange private messages at the same time as she

said she had concerns. The panel considered that she would have been highly unlikely

to have done so had she been of the view that Mr Mustard had intentions toward her

daughter that she considered could have been sexual in nature.

9

In relation to Witness B, the panel considered she was a credible and truthful witness

who gave a clear account of events on 15 July 2015.

She accepted that the motivation behind the messages she sent to Mr Mustard, in the

course of her posing as Pupil A, was to seek to lure him into sending a reply of a sexual

nature.

However she admitted that no response, which could reasonably and properly be

described as sexual, was sent by Mr Mustard in response to any of her messages.

Witness B further agreed that the responses she received were not those for which she

had been hoping.

Witness B's evidence was that whilst she remained concerned at the conclusion of the

exchange, she was relieved that the content of the messages was not as inappropriate

as she had feared they could have been.

Mr Mustard robustly denied this allegation as he has consistently done throughout the

police and School investigations. His evidence was that the conversation was innocent

and he denied that he was to any extent sexually motivated. However, the panel

considered certain elements of Mr Mustard's evidence to be troubling, in that there were

inconsistencies in the various accounts that he has given regarding his motivations.

The panel had reservations regarding Mr Mustard's evidence that he was intending to

bring the matter to the attention of the headteacher but was arrested before he was able

to do so. This was not an explanation that was provided either to the police or during the

course of the School's disciplinary meetings. Indeed it was first mentioned in a response

to the National College on 18 May 2016.

Whilst there was a suggestion from Witness A that there had been earlier, extensive

messages exchanged between Mr Mustard and Pupil A this did not form part of the

allegations. Mr Mustard's evidence was that there was just one prior exchange. The

panel noted that during the course of the exchange he made a request that Pupil A

should delete the conversation each time. There was no evidence before the panel as to

the nature of any such conversations or their content and this was not a matter the panel

was required to determine.

The panel did not accept Mr Mustard's evidence that he was not aware at the time that it

was inappropriate to have a private conversation on Instagram with an 11 year old girl.

He has now admitted and accepts that his conduct was inappropriate.

In considering whether Mr Mustard's conduct was sexually motivated the panel accepted

the legal advice provided, namely whether the conduct and actions of Mr Mustard were,

on the balance of probabilities, for some form of sexual gratification.

The advice was agreed by the National College.

10

On balance, the panel was not satisfied that Mr Mustard's conduct in relation to the facts

found proven in allegation 1 was for the purpose of sexual gratification and, on that basis,

did not find it was sexually motivated.

In relation to allegation 1.b Mr Mustard openly sought Witness A's permission in advance

to accept the requests from Pupil A and Pupil B. The panel did not consider that the mere

fact of Mr Mustard accepting the requests in those circumstances could in any way be

described as sexual.

In relation to allegation 1.a. the panel scrutinised the messages exchanged between Mr

Mustard and Witness B on 15 July 2015 and considered the oral evidence it heard.

The panel noted that the messages contained some very concerning elements,

particularly in circumstances where Pupil A was just 11 years old at the relevant time. In

particular, the reference to Pupil A possibly having a crush on Mr Mustard, his requests

for secrecy, for the messages to be deleted and the references to Pupil A's future

boyfriends were troubling. Mr Mustard acknowledged that a third party may consider

some of the messages "strange."

Equally, some elements of the messages were reassuring. For example, although

Witness B, posing as Pupil A, signed with kisses, Mr Mustard never did. When asked

when they could meet he responded with reference to the normal Football Club

meetings.

The panel did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to support the contention

that Mr Mustard's conduct could be appropriately and properly described as the early

stages of behaviour akin to grooming or that Mr Mustard desired the relationship to

develop over time to physical contact of a sexual nature. There was similarly no evidence

to suggest that Mr Mustard was hoping to maintain a relationship until Pupil A was older

or that he was seeking immediate titillation. There was no evidence of any intention for

Mr Mustard to meet with Pupil A and he was about to move away.

On the balance of probabilities and having considered the evidence in its entirety the

panel did not accept that the National College had proved that Mr Mustard's conduct was

sexually motivated.

Mr Mustard's representative referred to a previous panel's decision which adopted a two

stage test for sexual motivation. Firstly, whether the words and/or actions could be

viewed by a reasonable person as sexual and, secondly, whether in considering all of the

circumstances of the conduct, the purpose of such words and/or actions was sexual.

Having considered the evidence and, in particular, having scrutinised the content and

circumstances of the messages exchanged between Mr Mustard and Witness B, the

panel was not satisfied that a reasonable person would consider the conduct to be

sexual.

11

The panel accordingly does not find allegation 2 proven on the facts.

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

Having found allegation 1 to have been proven, the panel has gone on to consider

whether the facts of that proven allegation 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 we refer to as “the Advice”. The panel has also had regard

to the admissions made by Mr Mustard.

The panel is satisfied that the conduct of Mr Mustard in relation to the facts found proven,

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

Part Two, Mr Mustard 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 proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach.

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 Mustard was serious misconduct which fell

significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.

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

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

The panel has found that none of these offences are relevant.

Notwithstanding, the panel is satisfied that Mr Mustard is guilty of unacceptable

professional conduct and has noted his acceptance of this.

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.

12

The findings of misconduct are serious and the conduct displayed would likely have a

negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public

perception.

The panel therefore finds that Mr Mustard's actions constitute conduct that may bring the

profession into disrepute and has noted his acceptance of this.

Having found the facts of allegation 1.a. and 1.b. proved, we find that Mr Mustard's

conduct amounts to both unacceptable professional conduct and 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.

Mr Mustard's conduct involved a 3 hour conversation on social media between

approximately 9pm and midnight with a person he believed to be an 11 year old girl

concerning a variety of personal matters unrelated to school work. In light of the panel’s

findings, there is a strong public interest consideration in reinforcing the standards of

behaviour expected of a teacher.

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

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

utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.

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

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

Mustard was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

13

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 Mustard.

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

Mustard. 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 one 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.

Mitigating factors were that:

Mr Mustard was a newly qualified teacher;

The conversation involved one pupil only;

There was a single conversation;

No pupils were actually harmed;

Mr Mustard admitted the facts and misconduct at the earliest opportunity;

Mr Mustard was under some stress at work in respect of end of term marking

loads;

Mr Mustard has provided multiple glowing references from parents and pupils;

Mr Mustard is committed to teaching.

The aggravating factors were that:

As a newly qualified teacher Mr Mustard should have been well aware of the

pitfalls around the use of social media;

Mr Mustard had been warned previously by the School concerning the use of IT;

There is a clear and serious breach of the Teachers’ Standards;

Mr Mustard demonstrated limited insight into the responsibility of each teacher to

maintain appropriate standards come what may;

14

His evidence was in some respects inconsistent.

Mr Mustard’s actions were deliberate and he was not acting under duress.

The panel is accordingly of the view that prohibition is both proportionate and

appropriate.

The panel has decided that the public interest considerations outweigh the interests of Mr

Mustard. Accordingly, the panel makes a recommendation to the Secretary of State that

a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect.

The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for them to decide

to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel were

mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be

circumstances in any given case that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply

to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be

less than 2 years.

The Advice indicates that there are behaviours that, if proven, would militate against a

review period being recommended.

None of these behaviours were present.

Whilst Mr Mustard acknowledges his naivety and the inappropriate nature of his

behaviour and has shown some limited remorse, the panel considered that Mr Mustard

demonstrated limited insight into the responsibility of each teacher to maintain

appropriate standards come what may.

The panel felt its findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be

appropriate and as such decided that it would be proportionate in all the circumstances

for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period of 2 years

after which Mr Mustard may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside. It was the

panel's view that 2 years would enable Mr Mustard to demonstrate that he could:

consistently manage social media safely and appropriately; and

seek out, listen and have regard to the advice of more experienced practitioners.

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State

I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendations made by

the panel in respect of both sanction and review.

I have noted with great care where the panel has not found the allegation proven as well

as where the panel has found the facts proven and that those facts amount to

15

unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that is likely to bring the profession into

disrepute.

I have also taken into account the need to be proportionate in taking my decision. I have

weighed carefully the public interest and the interests of the individual teacher. I have

also read with care the guidance published by the Secretary of State.

I have considered with care the recommendation made by the panel in this case.

The case is one where the panel considers that by reference to Part Two, Mr Mustard 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 proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and

practices of the school in which they teach.

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

frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities.

The panel has recommended a prohibition order in this case. I consider that to be a

proportionate recommendation. The panel has very helpfully set out both the mitigating

and the aggravating factors in this case. I have taken those into account in reaching my

decision.

I have also given careful consideration of the matter of a review period. I have noted the

advice provided to me by the panel and I have also taken into account the guidance

published by the Secretary of State on that matter. For the reasons given I support the

recommendation of the panel that a two year review period will allow time for Mr Mustard

to demonstrate that he could:

consistently manage social media safely and appropriately; and

seek out, listen and have regard to the advice of more experienced practitioners.

This means that Mr Callum Mustard is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and

cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or

children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but

not until 27 January 2019, 2 years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not

an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will

16

meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful

application, Mr Callum Mustard remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely.

This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher.

Mr Callum Mustard has a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court

within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order.

Decision maker: Alan Meyrick

Date: 20 January 2017

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

State.