Mr Lewis Morrison: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the

Secretary of State for Education

June 2019

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 7

Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 13

Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15

3

Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on

behalf of the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mr Lewis Morrison

Teacher ref number: 1276774

Teacher date of birth: 4 February 1990

TRA reference: 17592

Date of determination: 28 June 2019

Former employer: Albion Academy, Salford

A. Introduction

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

TRA”) convened on 27 June 2019 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry,

CV1 2WT to consider the case of Mr Lewis Morrison.

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

Mrs Karen McArthur (lay panellist) and Mr Aftab Zia (teacher panellist).

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

The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Luke Deal of Browne Jacobson LLP.

Mr Morrison was not present and was not represented.

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 28

March 2019.

It was alleged that Mr Lewis Morrison was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct

and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that:

1. On or around 29 June 2018, he displayed inappropriate and/or unprofessional

behaviour whilst at a school prom and/or whilst in the presence of one or more

pupils including by:

a. Consuming an excessive amount of alcohol in the circumstances;

b. Shouting and/or swearing;

c. Making comments to the effect that:

(i) "I don’t give a fuck I am leaving in a couple of weeks, what are they

going to do about it?"

(ii) "Lads, you need to go where this lot are for the after party, they are

gagging for it" referring to female pupils

(iii) That he would "knock him the fuck out" referring to the school principal

simulating a head butt to the school principal.

Whilst Mr Morrison appeared to admit a number of facts, in the absence of unequivocal

admissions to the specific allegations, the allegations (and unacceptable professional

conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute) were taken to have not

been admitted.

C. Preliminary applications

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

Morrison.

The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took

account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the

case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases,

particularly GMC v Adeogba; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162).

The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in

accordance with Rules 4.11 and 4.12 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary

Procedures for the Teaching Profession ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for

service had been satisfied.

5

The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Morrison's absence or to

adjourn, in accordance with Rule 4.29 of the Procedures.

The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher

should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the

proceedings. The panel has given careful consideration to the fact that Mr Morrison is not

in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the

extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence.

The panel noted that there was an email from Browne Jacobson LLP to Mr Morrison

dated 15 April 2019 in which today's hearing date was specifically referred to, and that

the hearing could proceed in Mr Morrison's absence.

Mr Morrison had replied to this email stating that he would be sending a written statement

for the panel to consider regarding the allegations. In addition, there was a further email

to Mr Morrison dated 11 June 2019, which again stated that the hearing could proceed in

his absence.

Mr Deal explained that he had spoken to Mr Morrison in the morning and Mr Morrison

had confirmed that he would not be attending the hearing. Since the telephone call, Mr

Deal had also received Mr Morrison's statement to the allegations.

It was also brought to the panel's attention that the TRA's two live witnesses had

attended to give evidence and were only able to attend on Day 1.

On balance, the panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr

Morrison for the following reasons:

Mr Morrison has not sought an adjournment and there is no medical evidence

before the panel which indicated that he was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-

health.

The panel was satisfied that Mr Morrison's absence was voluntary and he had

waived his right to attend.

The risk of reaching the wrong conclusion and the disadvantage to Mr Morrison in

not being present is mitigated by the fact that the panel had his account regarding

the incident in question;

Given Mr Morrison's non-engagement, there was no indication that he might

attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment.

There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time.

There is a burden on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to

engage with their regulator.

6

There are witnesses present to give evidence to the panel who would be

significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned.

Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel will strive to ensure that the

proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr

Morrison is not present or represented.

The panel also considered it in the interests of justice to accept the undated written

response from Mr Morrison into evidence and those emails between Mr Morrison and

Browne Jacobson LLP.

D. Summary of evidence

Documents

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

Section 1: Chronology, List of Key People and Correspondence – pages 2 to 5

Section 2: Notice of Proceedings – pages 7 to 12

Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 14 to 23

Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 25 to 55

Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 57 to 59

In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:

Mr Morrison's undated response to the allegations – pages 60 to 62;

Emails between Mr Morrison and Browne Jacobson LLP – pages 63 to 69.

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

hearing.

Witnesses

The panel heard oral evidence on behalf of the TRA from:

Witness A, [REDACTED]; and

Witness B, [REDACTED]

7

E. Decision and reasons

The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:

The panel has carefully considered the case before 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 Morrison had been employed at the Albion Academy ('the Albion') since 1 September

2014 as a teacher of Music and Drama. On 25 May 2018, Mr Morrison handed in his

resignation to move to a different school.

On 29 June 2018, the Albion held its Year 11 School Prom at the Hotel Football, Old

Trafford. Mr Morrison was one of the teachers in attendance and was observed in a

drunken state and swearing. He was asked to leave towards the end of the event and did

so without argument.

In the days following the event, a mobile phone recording of Mr Morrison's behaviour

during the prom was uploaded to social media and quickly disseminated. Mr Morrison

was suspended from his role on 2 July 2018 and an investigation commenced, with

which Mr Morrison co-operated.

Mr Morrison's resignation became effective on 31 August 2018, prior to the disciplinary

hearing.

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. On or around 29 June 2018, you displayed inappropriate and / or

unprofessional behaviour whilst at a school prom and / or whilst in the

presence of one or more pupils including by:

a. Consuming an excessive amount of alcohol in the circumstances

The panel heard live evidence on this allegation from Witness A, [REDACTED].

Witness A confirmed that a Year 11 Prom ('the Prom') took place on 29 June 2018. He

explained that, whilst he did not have any day-to-day responsibility for the preparation of

the Prom at Hotel Football, Old Trafford, a number of teachers had put in significant effort

to ensure that the event went smoothly. He said in the week preceding the Prom, it had

come to his attention that another local school, Co-Op Academy Swinton ('Swinton'), had

8

coincidentally also arranged for its Year 11 Prom to be held at the same venue on the

same evening (albeit in a separate area).

This concerned Witness A as there had been, in the past, confrontation between pupils of

the two schools. However, having discussed matters with Witness B, [REDACTED], both

were content that, having considered which pupils were to attend, the events could

proceed simultaneously.

On the afternoon of 29 June 2018, Witness A sent an email to all staff at The Albion

asking, in part, that:

"…I would politely request that all staff present this evening recognise and uphold the

standards expected of teachers in public life".

Witness A explained that he sent the email as he felt it important that all staff were clear

as to how they should behave at the Prom and generally in their professional lives. This

email was further to training he had given to the teachers, at the beginning of the year,

regarding appropriate standards.

In evidence, Witness A confirmed that he did not expect those staff present at the Prom

to not drink: it was a Friday night and the staff had to pay for their tickets to supervise the

pupils that were attending. However, he did expect the staff to have only one, possibly

two, alcoholic drinks. Witness A said that pupils were not permitted to drink alcohol during

the event.

During the evening, Witness A stated that he went to the front of Hotel Football to

observe what was going on. Witness A was unclear as to the time of the evening when

he did this but stated that it was after dinner and 'the sun was setting'.

Whilst Witness A was there, he said that he observed Mr Morrison surrounded by

approximately a dozen pupils. Mr Morrison was holding a pint glass of beer or lager and

"…was gesticulating a lot with his arms, being very loud and seemed to be putting on a

kind of act to the girls…Mr Morrison was sloshing around his pint and his swaggering, I

am sure that he was drunk. I had also just been made aware by the Duty Manager of the

hotel that Mr Morrison had been asked on several occasions to either take his drink

inside or swap it for a plastic glass to which he had refused."

Witness A stated that he had asked Individual A, [REDACTED], to speak to Mr Morrison.

In evidence, Witness A stated he did not approach Mr Morrison himself as, 'It would have

dampened his spirit if I had told him to go home' and that he thought it appropriate to

delegate this task.

The panel also heard live evidence from Witness B. He stated that he was present at the

Prom and was alerted that a teacher from The Albion was behaving in a 'concerning

way'.

9

Witness B confirmed to the panel that he observed this teacher at the front of Hotel

Football, and the teacher was holding a pint glass of beer or lager surrounded by "5 to 10

pupils".

Witness B stated he heard these pupils referring to the teacher as 'Mr Morrison' and that

the teacher was "…unsteady on his feet." He also heard pupils commenting that Mr

Morrison was "so pissed".

Witness B said that he observed Mr Morrison for some time (possibly an hour) and asked

for Witness A to be fetched. Witness B did not approach Mr Morrison as he had

previously been told by a Hotel Football staff member that Mr Morrison had been 'rude

and aggressive' when asked not to take glasses outside.

The panel also had the benefit of the witness statement of Individual B, [REDACTED].

Individual B stated that Mr Morrison was "…drunk…because he was behaving in a

manner which I would associate with being under the influence of alcohol. Mr Morrison

was loud and gesturing using his arms in an exaggerated manner and also ignoring the

requests from hotel staff to go inside the venue".

In his written response to the allegations, Mr Morrison stated the following:

"At the school prom on Friday 29th June, I had a few alcoholic drinks, as the large

majority of Albion Academy staff were in fact drinking and alcohol was not banned

at the event."

"I was not falling over, fighting or being sick"

"…admittedly I had a few too many drinks".

The panel also noted that in Mr Morrison's response to the internal disciplinary inquiry

that took place, he stated that he had drunk "6-7 pints of San Miguel".

From the actions of Mr Morrison as described in live evidence of both Witness A and

Witness B, and also his admission, Mr Morrison clearly had alcohol in his system. This

appeared to be affecting his behaviour, when he was present at a school event in order

to maintain the safety of pupils.

In such circumstances, six or seven pints appeared to have influenced Mr Morrison's

behaviour to such an extent that other teachers who were present were concerned and

pupils had made comments, albeit in a jovial way. As such, the panel find this allegation

proved.

b. Shouting and / or swearing

c. Making comments to the effect that:

10

(i) "I don’t give a fuck I am leaving in a couple of weeks, what are they

going to do about it?"

(ii) "Lads, you need to go where this lot are for the after party, they are

gagging for it" referring to female pupils

The panel heard live evidence on these allegations from Witness B, who confirmed in

evidence that he clearly heard Mr Morrison state, in response to a pupil saying he was

"so pissed", that:

"I don't give a fuck, I am leaving in a couple of weeks, what are they going to do

about it?"

In addition, Witness B also recalled Mr Morrison saying:

"Lads, you need to go where this lot are for the after party, they are gagging for it".

In his evidence, Witness B was adamant that he could hear Mr Morrison say the above

phrases as he was shouting. Witness B said that he was, 'appalled and saddened' by Mr

Morrison's actions, not least as it undermined trust in the profession. He explained that,

on the night in question, not only did Mr Morrison have pupils around him but, because of

where the Proms were being held, members of the public were also present and would

have viewed his actions and heard his comments.

Witness B said that he was so concerned about Mr Morrison's behaviour that he emailed

Witness A on 1 July 2018 to inform him of the concerns that he had regarding Mr

Morrison. Within this email, which the panel had sight of, Witness B specifically refers to

the wording of the two comments that he heard Mr Morrison say.

The panel also had consideration to the witness statement of Individual B who stated that

he heard Mr Morrison say:

"Lads, you need to go where this lot are for the after party, they are gagging for it".

In his response to the allegations, Mr Morrison accepted that he had consumed too many

alcoholic drinks, which had meant he had made "…some bad decisions in the way I

conducted myself."

Mr Morrison also explained that that "..the quotes and comments that I have allegedly

made they have been massively twisted, exaggerated and taken out of context. Yes, I did

swear and act unprofessionally…Regarding the comments of a sexual nature, these

comments have been twisted and taken out of context. I was not and have never

encouraged sexual activity amongst students".

In the panel's view, Witness B gave clear evidence as to what he had heard Mr Morrison

shout during the Prom. He was adamant that he heard Mr Morrison's words clearly, as

corroborated by the fact he heard Mr Morrison's reference to 'leaving in a couple of

11

weeks'. As a teacher at a different school to The Albion, there was no reason for Witness

B to know this fact unless Mr Morrison had said this phrase and had said it clearly.

The panel was therefore persuaded that Witness B did correctly hear all of what Mr

Morrison had said and shouted. It was unclear to the panel how the words allegedly said

by Mr Morrison, a teacher at a school event, could be taken out of context to such an

extent to make them appropriate in the circumstances.

On this basis, the panel found these allegations proved.

(iii) That you would "knock him the fuck out" referring to the school

principal simulating a head butt to the school principal.

Witness A, in evidence, stated that he became aware that a video-recording of Mr

Morrison had circulated on social media following the Prom. This video apparently

showed Mr Morrison behaving inappropriately and made reference to Witness A in

comments that he had made.

Witness A said that the video had caused disruption and he had been called by parents

who had concerns as to the teacher's conduct.

In evidence, Witness B stated he had also been contacted by parents who had

complained about Mr Morrison's conduct, despite him being a teacher at another school.

The panel had the benefit of viewing a short video recorded on a mobile phone. In this

video, a male who was identified by Witness A as being Mr Morrison, clearly stated that

he would 'knock him [Witness A] the fuck out' followed by a head-butt action towards the

screen of the mobile phone. This phrase was repeated on more than one occasion and

Mr Morrison tells the recorder, in a forceful manner, to 'put that on Snapchat'.

In his written response, Mr Morrison accepted that his behaviour in the video was

"…unprofessional and inappropriate in terms of the language used and the themes

provoked. However, Witness A was never threatened by myself face to face and I don't

believe there is any adult or child in this school or the wider community who believes this

would be the case. The violent content is an isolated incident amongst a range of silly

jokes that I have taken too far."

Mr Morrison also states that "…the video of me on social media was not posted by myself

so I had no control over it after it was filmed."

From the live, written and video evidence, the panel find this allegation also proved.

12

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

Having found all of the allegations to have been proven, the panel 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 Morrison in relation to the facts found

proven, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considers that by

reference to Part Two, Mr Morrison 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 Morrison amounts to misconduct of a serious

nature, which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Whilst

the events in question took place over a relatively short period of time and on only one

occasion, his comments were made in front of pupils and also the public who were in the

vicinity.

The remarks made by Mr Morrison were significantly inappropriate and included

insinuations of violence. His behaviour was so far below the appropriate standard that

parents' complaints were made not only to The Albion's Head teacher but also to Witness

B, the Head teacher of a different school.

Whilst there is no suggestion that any pupils did come to harm, Mr Morrison was present

at the Prom to ensure pupil safety. Had his assistance been required, his alcohol

consumption may well have impaired his ability to carry out his duty.

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

associated with any of the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice and the

panel found none of these offences to be relevant.

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

13

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.

In the light of all of the facts, the panel determined that, for each allegation, Mr Morrison's

actions amounted 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 maintenance of public confidence in the profession; and

declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct.

In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Morrison, which involved him drinking excessive

alcohol at an end of year prom and, thereafter, swearing and shouting, the panel

considers that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct

such as that found against Mr Morrison was not treated with the utmost seriousness

when regulating the conduct of the profession.

Similarly, 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 Morrison was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.

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 Morrison.

14

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

Morrison.

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 to this case is:

serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the

Teachers’ Standards.

Even though there was behaviour 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.

In light of the panel’s findings, there was no evidence that Mr Morrison's actions were not

deliberate or that he was acting under duress. However, the panel did note that, up to

this incident, he had a good record.

The panel noted that Mr Morrison had expressed remorse and offered apologies to

Witness A and The Albion in his response. He had also accepted, at the earliest

opportunity during the internal investigation, that he had made mistakes and did not try to

defend his actions although he did appear to minimise some of the concerns.

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.

In the panel's view, Mr Morrison's actions were those of crass stupidity, which

represented a considerable misjudgement as to what was an appropriate amount to

drink, and language to use, at an end of year prom. It appeared to the panel that Mr

Morrison did not fully appreciate the necessary boundaries that must be maintained

between teachers and pupils, even at an out of hours event. He had allowed his

enthusiasm at leaving The Albion to be demonstrated excessively and inappropriately in

language and action.

Nevertheless, there was no evidence before the panel that there were any underlying

concerns regarding Mr Morrison. The panel accepted that Mr Morrison's behaviour, whilst

undoubtedly a serious mistake, had taken place during a limited time-period on one

evening. It was, to all intents, a one-off incident. Further, there was no suggestion that

any pupils came to any harm at all (although a hypothetical risk was present) and it

appeared to be an isolated incident of poor conduct exacerbated by alcohol.

15

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 factor that was 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 Morrison and the profession, as to the standards

of behaviour that are not acceptable. A publication also 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 the

Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers.

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

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

the profession into disrepute.

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

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

action is proportionate and in the public interest.

In particular, the panel has found that Mr Morrison 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 finds that the conduct of Mr Morrison fell significantly short of the standards

expected of the profession.

16

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

on him, is proportionate and in the public interest.

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

children. The panel has observed, “no suggestion that any pupils came to any harm at all

(although a hypothetical risk was present) and it appeared to be in isolated incident of

poor conduct exacerbated by alcohol.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a

risk from being present in the future.

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

panel sets out as follows, “The panel noted that Mr Morrison had expressed remorse and

offered apologies to Witness A and The Albion in his response. He had also accepted, at

the earliest opportunity during the internal investigation, that he had made mistakes and

did not try to defend his actions although he did appear to minimise some of the

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

decision.

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

confidence in the profession. I note that the panel “considers that public confidence in the

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

Morrison was 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 the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a

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

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

citizen.”

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

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

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

case.

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

panel note that, “up to this incident, he had a good record.”

17

A prohibition order would prevent Mr Morrison from teaching. A prohibition order would

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

in force.

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

view, Mr Morrison's actions were those of crass stupidity, which represented a

considerable misjudgement as to what was an appropriate amount to drink, and

language to use, at an end of year prom” and the panel also say, “Nevertheless, there

was no evidence before the panel that there were any underlying concerns regarding Mr

Morrison. The panel accepted that Mr Morrison's behaviour, whilst undoubtedly a serious

mistake, had taken place during a limited time-period on one evening.”

Furthermore I have placed significant weight on the panel’s view of the seriousness of

this behaviour and mitigation, the panel say, “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

factor that was present in this case, the panel has determined that a recommendation for

a prohibition order will not be appropriate in this case.”

I agree with the panel and in my view, it is not necessary to impose a prohibition order in

order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision of the adverse

findings made is sufficient to send an appropriate message to Mr Morrison and the

profession. In light of the circumstances in this case, and the remorse and insight shown,

this does in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence

in the profession.

Decision maker: Dawn Dandy

Date: 4 July 2019

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

State.