NATIONAL COLLEGE FOR TEACHING AND LEADERSHIP

Decision of a Professional Conduct Panel and the Secretary of State

Teacher: Mr Paul Nutley

Teacher ref no: 9143646

Teacher date of birth: 7 December 1955

NCTL Case ref no: 3885

Date of Determination: Tuesday 25 June 2013

A. Introduction

A Professional Conduct Panel (“the Panel”) of the National College for Teaching and

Leadership (The National College) convened on 24 and 25 June 2013 at 53-55 Butts

Road, Earlsdon Park, Coventry, CV1 3BH to consider the case of Mr Paul Nutley.

The Panel members were Ms Jean Carter (Lay Panellist in the Chair), Mrs Mary

Speakman (Teacher Panellist) and Mr David Longson (Teacher Panellist).

The Legal Adviser to the Panel was Mr Paddy Roche of Morgan Cole LLP Solicitors,

Oxford.

The Presenting Officer for the National College for Teaching and Leadership was

Miss Sophie Lister of Kingsley Napley LLP Solicitors.

Mr Paul Nutley was present and was represented by Mr Steve Lloyd of the

NASUWT.

The hearing took place in public and was recorded.

B. Allegations

The Panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 17

August 2012.

It was alleged that Mr Paul Nutley was guilty of Unacceptable Professional Conduct

in that whilst employed at Northcott Special School, Hull he:-

1. Failed to follow the correct examination procedures by asking a Teaching

Assistant, Witness A, on 13 November 2008 to complete two AQA French

Entry Level Certificate test papers, namely:-

a. Unit 2: Free time, ELC Reading Assessment a Set 2, Entry 3; and

b. Unit 2: Free time, Writing Assignment a Set 2, Entry 3, on behalf of a

pupil AB;

2. On several occasions knowingly gave answers to pupils whilst they were

completing tests and assessments in the subjects that he taught;

3. Behaved and spoke in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner to pupils;

4. Behaved and spoke in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner to

Teaching Assistants.

The allegations were denied by Mr Nutley.

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 (Page 1 - not included).

Section 2 Notice of Proceedings and Response Pages 2 to 10.

Section 3 The National College Witness Statements Pages 12 to 25.

Section 4 The National College Documents Pages 26 to 349.

Section 5 Teacher Documents Pages 351 to 375.

By agreement a further document being a character reference for Mr Nutley from

Dushanbe International School (undated) was added at Page 375a.

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

the hearing.

Brief summary of evidence given

Both the Presenting Officer and Mr Lloyd made opening statements.

The Presenting Officer called the following witnesses:-

Witness A

This witness adopted her witness statement (Pages 12-17). She said:-

 On 13 November 2008 the children were sitting an exam – that’s what they

were told they were doing.

 Mr Nutley wanted to get the exam done and half the children were missing – it

was quite stressful.

 Mr Nutley gave her AB’s exam paper. AB was absent in the Gambia.

 She could not remember his exact words at all. He asked her to “just fill it in”.

 She said “I can’t do that” – she felt she did not have a choice.

 She said to her colleague “this is so wrong”.

 She was sure Mr Nutley said “just fill it in”.

 She understood that he wanted her to fill in the answers – that’s what he

wanted her to do.

 She definitely said “I can’t do that”.

 He said to her “oh come on Witness A”.

 The documents at Pages 126 and Page 282 were the writing and reading

exam papers for child AB – it was her writing.

 She could not remember whether the papers were left on the desk or she

handed them in at the end of the lesson.

 In classes Mr Nutley would just flip up a sheet on the flip board and it was the

children’s choice if they took notice of what was written there.

 In French she remembered the words “J’aime” and “Je déteste” being on the

board – written in English along side – that was all she could remember.

 Mr Nutley used to emphasise “pis” in the word piscine which used to make the

children giggle.

 She remembered Mr Nutley talking about “necrophilia” in class in relation to

pupil HC.

 Mr Nutley had stood up another pupil and said how terrible he was and he

was “scum of the earth”.

On cross examination she said:

 She couldn’t remember how late half the children were to the class on 13

November – it was more than five minutes.

 Mr Nutley told her to fill in the form.

 He did not ask her to fill in the name and centre number only.

 He told her to fill it in.

 She couldn’t remember his exact words.

 She felt so intimidated that she did not have a choice.

 She accepted that Witness B, Acting Head Teacher, was approachable.

 She could have gone to see her but she was frightened of reprisals.

 She just did not want any comeback.

 It was not possible that she had misunderstood Mr Nutley’s request.

 She did not know that Individual C was keeping a written record on Mr Nutley

– that came as news to her today.

 She didn’t make a complaint about the comments made by Mr Nutley to

Pupils.

 It was more than one occasion and it just became the norm – she did not

question things.

 She still had to work with Mr Nutley and was frightened.

 She couldn’t say precisely whether Mr Nutley had used the word “spragged” -

she accepted it was a local word.

On questioning by the Panel she said:-

 There were no more than twelve pupils in Mr Nutley’s class.

 On the day of the exam they waited for others to arrive.

 Mr Nutley was getting stressed because the exam was to be done.

 Papers were given out which is when Mr Nutley asked her to do it.

 The papers that she filled in were handed in at the end of the lesson.

 There would be no reason why the name of AB would need to be filled in on

any of the papers.

 She couldn’t see any need for that when the child was absent.

 She reported what had happened to Individual D because she was her

immediate boss.

 She couldn’t believe what she’d done.

 She just needed to get it off her chest.

 It was the first time she had referred anything to Individual D.

Witness B gave evidence.

She adopted her witness statement at Pages 18 to 25. She said:-

 She was Acting Head Teacher at the time of the investigation.

 Individual D called and asked to see her.

 She came in and told her of the incident involving Witness A filling in papers

for an absent pupil.

 The interview notes that she made with members of staff were very accurate,

notes were taken, they were read through and sent to the witness to sign.

 Child AB was absent when the assessment was carried out.

 It was standard practice to do an assessment on another date if a child was

absent.

 The exam papers had been handed in, filed away and had been marked.

 She found child AB’s papers which were marked and filed away with the rest

of the class papers.

 In relation to the history assessment she went through the class papers

looking for similarities.

 She would expect some similarities in pupils’ response answers if they were

taught by the same Teacher but not as similar as these papers.

 Ten out of fourteen pupils spelt the word “herd” incorrectly.

 As a result of Mr Nutley’s conduct the School withdrew all of his assessments

from the Exam Board.

 There seemed to be evidence of him making inappropriate and sexual

references to pupils.

 Some of his comments would have gone over their heads but other pupils

were street-wise and would have understood.

 Mr Nutley admitted that he had spoken to a member of staff inappropriately –

he said he was stressed and he had apologised.

Under cross examination she said:-

 She accepted there had not really been time to have a proper exam

conditions test on 13 November 2008.

 In relation to the History papers she thought it was unusual to misspell “herd”

as “heard”.

 It was the more able pupils that didn’t do so.

 There had only been one parental complaint about Mr Nutley during the time

that she was acting as Head Teacher.

 It was resolved by her speaking to Mr Nutley.

 She had advised him about making remarks in front of pupils.

 She accepted that pupils were pleased to have Mr Nutley as their Teacher.

 She didn’t find it surprising that a second member of staff couldn’t remember

precisely what was said to Witness A on 13 November.

 Her impression was that the other member of staff did substantiate what

Witness A had said.

 She was essentially saying the same thing had happened.

 She would have hoped that it would have been reported by Witness A.

 Mr Nutley was popular with his class.

 She felt it was difficult for Support Staff to report a Teacher and some thought

that they wouldn’t be taken seriously.

 She understood that a member of staff kept a written record of incidents

involving Mr Nutley.

 She couldn’t say why some things were recorded in the notebook and not

others.

On questioning by the Panel she said:-

 Because of concerns raised about other assessments she interviewed other

staff at the School.

 She interviewed other Teaching Assistants from other lessons that Mr Nutley

taught.

 She felt she took account of a fair spread of views.

 She was very clear that the interviews were entirely confidential and not to be

discussed with other members of staff.

 Her impression was that the persons she interviewed had not discussed

incidents with others – they appeared very shocked.

 She had no sense that there was a vendetta against Mr Nutley.

 The French Assessments done on 13 November were found in a locked filing

cabinet.

 When assessments are done they are locked away.

 Pupil AB’s marked assessment was there even though she had been absent

from the class.

Teacher’s Case

Witness E gave evidence. He adopted his witness statement (pp 363 – 365) He

said:-

 That Paul Nutley was known to him from his time at Northcott School and for

some years before.

 Mr Nutley related well to the children.

 The children liked him.

 Quite a few of the children were upset when he left without a word.

 He was acknowledged to be a good teacher.

 He was able to get points over in a humorous way.

 Teaching Assistants used to talk about him with admiration and affection.

 He knew that Mr Nutley was going through a very difficult situation with his

wife.

 He felt that Mr Nutley had not been guided as he should have been by the

School Management.

On questioning by the Panel he said:-

 He didn’t feel it was a type of school where problems could be raised and

sorted out without stress.

 He was not sure people felt very comfortable about going and asking for help.

 He felt that Mr Nutley was not guided and supported sufficiently.

 When Paul Nutley was sent out of the school it was a total shock to him.

Witness F gave evidence. He adopted his testimonial (p 369). He said:-

 He had worked alongside Paul Nutley for a year or two.

 He had never had any problems with him at all.

 He was very effective with children.

 He was a very funny man and it worked well.

 Children used to love him.

 He was caring, careful, supportive and understanding.

 He left flip charts with different words on them when Witness F took over his

French classes.

On cross examination he said:-

 He had never witnessed Paul Nutley in French, History or Maths lessons.

On questioning by the Panel he said:-

 He never felt uncomfortable about Paul Nutley’s sense of humour.

 When he described his sense of humour as “over the top” he really meant

zany.

 He had never once heard Mr Nutley make an over the top joke.

Paul Nutley gave evidence. He adopted his witness statement (pp 358 – 366). He

said:-

 He had no previous experience in Maths at secondary level.

 He had to do two years Maths teaching in one.

 He had his doubts about being able to do this.

On cross examination he said:-

 On 13 November 2008 a lot of the children missed at least forty minutes of the

lesson.

 The adults knew that it was going to be a test.

 They knew the papers were never going to be sent off.

 He had compulsive/obsessive traits.

 He collected the papers in.

 He wouldn’t have looked at the names he just went tick, tick, tick and put the

papers away.

 It couldn’t have been an exam - there was not enough time.

 He was one hundred percent certain that Witness A knew it was not a test –

they didn’t have the time – it was impossible.

 He said to her “please write down the name and centre number”.

 He really could remember this.

 It was his system to have a sheet with all the candidates’ names and the

centre number.

 Everybody has their own system.

 It was to show the class what exams were like.

 He didn’t remember Witness A saying “I can’t do it”.

 He accepted the papers had been ticked by him.

 He marked all the sheets including the sheets for AB who was absent.

 He doubted that he even looked at their names.

 He asked why the witnesses had not spoken to him at the end of the lesson.

 He said the witnesses had worked with him for four years.

 He was stressed “most of the time”.

 The marked papers weren’t in a locked filing cabinet – they were in a wooden

box – he could be mistaken.

 In relation to the flip chart not one word that ever went on any of the boards

was from him – this accounted for the misspellings.

 He would leave the misspelt word up and say to the class “are you sure?” - he

wouldn’t touch it.

 None of the words that went on the flip charts were from him.

 He mentioned that he was not confident in Year 10 and 11 French.

 He told the School he wasn’t confident but he would do his best.

 The word on the French papers “jour” and not “jouer” came from the pupils not

him.

 He knew that there were one or two words spelt slightly wrong which wouldn’t

have affected their mark.

 He had not changed his system in the last three years.

 History was his major subject – it was his thing.

 He got key words and wrote them on the board for everyone.

 He was stupid to help the School by taking Maths.

 Witness B knew that they were doing two years of Maths in one academic

year.

 She didn’t acknowledge it.

 In relation to speaking with the pupils he had no recollection of using the word

necrophilia to child HC.

 He wanted to know why the Teaching Assistant had not reported it.

 He thought she had misheard it or thought it up later.

 He categorically denied using that word.

 He didn’t remember using the word “scum”. It was not right he’d used the

expression “scum of the earth” – “scum” was really insulting.

 He had called Pupil J a “bully” – Pupil J was tough.

 He may possibly have used the word “thug” and he may possibly have said to

Pupil J “you repulse me”.

 He categorically denied saying anything about cowboys having sex.

 All the witnesses to these expressions were women.

 He absolutely did not use the expression re Buffalo Bill – he was not a

pervert.

 He had used “agricultural language” towards Individual A – he couldn’t

remember the exact words – he was admitting this.

On questioning by the Panel he said:-

 He felt he was picked on - his threshold application was turned down.

 There were times when he could have behaved better.

 No one said anything to his face.

 In relation to a Maths pupil he had a lot of help and he, Mr Nutley, had given

him a lot of time.

 He was very certain that neither Individual D nor he cheated with the pupil in

Maths – they’d given one pupil more assistance than the others.

 He felt at the time he was not well but didn’t think he realised it then.

 He thought he suffered from depression but he was not aware how bad he

was.

 He thought he should have paid a visit to the Doctor in about October 2008.

 In eighteen months three Teachers had left the School.

The Presenting Officer and Mr Lloyd made closing submissions.

E. Legal Advice

Before the Panel went into private session to consider its decision, the Legal Adviser

declared the following advice:-

1. Under the Disciplinary Procedures for the regulation of the teaching

profession, the decision-making process has three stages:-

i. The Panel must be satisfied as to the facts of the case.

ii. The Panel must be satisfied that those facts amount to Unacceptable

Professional Conduct; and

iii. If Unacceptable Professional Conduct is found, then the Panel must

consider the previous history and character of the Teacher and any

mitigating circumstances before deciding whether or not to recommend

to the Secretary of State that a Prohibition Order is appropriate.

2. The burden of proving the allegations rests with the Presenting Officer, not

with the Respondent Teacher.

3. The standard of proof applied in these proceedings is the civil standard, “on

the balance of probabilities”. This means that before finding a factual

allegation proved, the Panel must be satisfied that an event is more likely to

have happened than not.

4. In this case the Panel had heard evidence from a number of witnesses.

Some of those witnesses principally Witness A and the Teacher himself had

given first hand evidence and had been questioned by the advocates and by

the Panel. This gave the Panel an opportunity to assess the credibility of

each witness and to test the evidence by questioning. Where evidence was in

dispute that was the best possible evidence as the evidence had been tested

in this way.

5. Other witnesses had given evidence to the Panel in the course of the

proceedings but much of that evidence had been hearsay because it was

principally evidence of what the witnesses had been told by others. This

applied particularly to Witness B who had conducted the investigation into Mr

Nutley’s conduct on behalf of the School. In addition the case papers

contained a number of records of interview of other persons who had not

been called in person and other documents. All of that was hearsay evidence

which is admissible in the National College for Teaching and Leadership

proceedings. The Panel should however bear in mind that it had not heard

direct oral evidence on the matters covered in the documentation and from

other witnesses and should consider treating hearsay evidence with caution

and consider carefully what weight it considered should be attached to it.

6. In this case there are a number of separate particulars set out in the Notice of

Proceedings the Panel should assess the evidence in relation to each

particular separately and independently and make a finding of fact in relation

to each particular.

7. As far as Witness B was concerned she had given evidence about her view of

the alleged similarities in some of the History papers exhibited in the case

documents. The Panel should bear in mind that she was not an expert in

matters of this sort and that her evidence in relation to her opinion carried no

more weight than, for example, any assessment made by members of the

Panel itself. The Panel should be careful not to give undue weight to her

opinion in relation to the comparison of the History papers.

8. The Teacher himself had given evidence on oath and he should suffer no

disadvantage whatsoever simply by virtue of being the Respondent in these

proceedings. Mr Nutley’s evidence should be assessed on the same basis as

the evidence of any other witness who had given evidence before the Panel

over the course of the last two days. The Panel should therefore be careful to

assess the weight that could properly be given to Mr Nutley’s evidence in the

same way as it would do in relation to the other witnesses from whom it had

heard.

9. If the Panel found all or any of the particulars proved to the requisite standard

against Mr Nutley it should then go on to determine whether this is a case of

Unacceptable Professional Conduct. “Unacceptable Professional Conduct” is

defined in “The Prohibition of Teachers – DfE advice on factors relating to

decision leading to the prohibition of teachers from the teaching profession”

as “misconduct of a serious nature, falling significantly short of the standard of

behaviour expected of a teacher”.

10. Whether any facts the Panel find proved amount to Unacceptable

Professional Conduct is a matter for the judgement of the Panel itself applying

this definition.

11. The Panel may have regard to the latest Teachers’ Standards as published by

or, on behalf of, the Secretary of State.

12. Should the final stage be reached in this matter, then the Panel’s attention will

be drawn to “The Prohibition of Teachers – DfE advice on factors relating to

decision leading to the prohibition of teachers from the teaching profession” in

deciding whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition

order is appropriate.

13. In relation to the imposition of a Prohibition Order the Panel should take

account of any mitigating features in relation to the Teacher which it finds to

be material and should follow the Guidance mentioned above in relation to

any recommendation to the Secretary of State.

14. The Panel should give reasons for its decisions and recommendations at

each stage.

F. Panel’s Decision and Reasons

The Panel announced its decision and reasons as follows:-

We have now carefully considered the case before us and have reached a decision.

We confirm that we have read all the documents provided in the bundle in advance

of the hearing.

The case concerns allegations that Paul Nutley, whilst employed as a form

tutor at Northcott School Hull, on 13 November 2008 supervised an Entry Level

Certificate in French Reading and Writing. One of the children AB, who was

blind, was absent from the class in Gambia. A Teaching Assistant in the class

that day alleges that Mr Nutley gave out exam sheets and requested that she

should fill out an exam sheet for child AB. Although she said “I can’t do that”

she, in fact, complied because she felt intimidated and completed the exam

paperwork and handed it to Mr Nutley. Mr Nutley denies that this occurred.

It is further alleged by several witnesses that Mr Nutley would often indicate

the correct answers to pupils completing tests and exam assessments in his

class usually by writing the answers on a flip chart or board and pointing to

the answers written. On other occasions it is alleged he told the pupils what to

write.

Witnesses also speak of him using inappropriate language and expressions to

pupils in class and causing upset to pupils by his teaching style and

comments. Other witnesses describe instances where he is alleged to have

been intimidating and abusive to colleagues. It is alleged that he is thus guilty

of Unacceptable Professional Conduct by this behaviour. All of the particulars

are denied by Mr Nutley.

Findings of fact

Our findings of fact are as follows:-

We have found the following particulars of the allegations against Paul Nutley

proven:-

That whilst employed at Northcott Special School, Hull Mr Nutley :-

1. Failed to follow the correct examination procedures by asking a Teaching

Assistant, Witness A, on 13 November 2008, to complete two AQA French

Entry Level Certificate Test Papers, namely;

(a) Unit 2: Free Time, ELC Reading Assessment a Set, Entry 3 and

(b) Unit 2: Free Time, Writing Assignment a Set 2, Entry 3 on behalf of a

Pupil, AB;

We have heard conflicting accounts of what occurred in Mr Nutley’s

classroom on this date from Witness A and Mr Nutley. We find that Witness A

gave an account on oath which was broadly consistent with both her written

witness statement at pp 12-17 in the case papers and her interview with

Witness B at pp.38-41. We acknowledge that there was some lack of clarity

in her evidence and that she accepted that she could not recall the exact

words used by Mr Nutley when directing her to fill in a form for the absent

Pupil AB. We were satisfied that she was a credible witness who, although

very nervous, was doing her best to tell the truth. We will deal with her

evidence in more detail later.

By contrast we felt that Mr Nutley was an erratic witness. We found it very

difficult to understand and accept his explanation for the assessment papers

completed by Witness A on behalf of the absent pupil AB being marked and

filed with the papers completed by the remainder of the class. We find that

his explanation that the way he dealt with AB’s papers was somehow the

result of his compulsive/obsessive traits to be incredible.

In relation to this particular there is no dispute that:-

 Witness A was given an instruction by Mr Nutley.

 She completed the assessment papers for AB – including the centre

number and the answers.

 The completed papers were handed in.

 Mr Nutley marked the papers submitted on behalf of AB.

 He filed the marked papers with those completed by the other pupils and

entered the Level awarded to each pupil.

 The class papers were filed either in a locked filing cabinet or a box.

Those agreed facts persuade us that this was intended by Mr Nutley to be a

piece of assessed work done under the conditions imposed by AQA in relation

to supervision and authentication and in accordance with the published

scheme of assessment. We appreciate that Mr Nutley categorically denies

that this was anything other than a practice session but if that is so we cannot

understand why AQA forms were used, why the Centre number was entered,

why the papers were marked and why they were kept and filed in the way

described.

Witness A told us that she could not remember the precise words used by Mr

Nutley but she was sure she was being required to fill in the papers on behalf

of pupil AB. She was sure that was the effect of the instruction. She said she

felt she could not do it and protested. Mr Nutley said to her “Oh come on

Witness A”. She then completed the papers as indicated above. Individual H

at p 43 also says in her interview that this occurred and says it was clear that

Witness A was asked to complete the assessment.

Even if there is some uncertainty in the evidence as to the precise words used

by Mr Nutley we note that he collected in the papers. He marked the

assessments including the papers completed by Witness A. This was a small

class of 12 pupils. Mr Nutley, on his own account, did not notice that he was

marking the assessments completed for AB who was absent and those

assessments were treated in the same way as all the others collected in.

No questions were asked by Mr Nutley of Witness A as to the reason that the

AB assessments had been fully completed and we just cannot accept that in a

small class Mr Nutley failed to spot that AB’s assessments had been fully

completed by Witness A when she was asked only, on his account, to fill in

the pupil’s name and the Centre number. In short we do not believe him and

thus we find this particular proved.

2. On several occasions knowingly gave answers to pupils whilst they were

completing tests and assessments in the subjects that you taught:

The French ELC writing assignments – Set 2 Unit 2 – Free Time exhibited in

the case papers at pp 139 – 150 in the case papers contain two errors in

spelling/punctuation that are repeated exactly in the work of each pupil. In

answer to Q3 “Je n’aime” is incorrectly written as “ Je naime.” (apostrophe

missing). In answer to Q5 “jouer” is incorrectly written as “jour”. This drives

us to the irresistible conclusion that these answers must have been copied by

the pupils.

In his evidence Mr Nutley told us that anything in class that he wrote on the

flip board and the pupils may have copied came from the pupils themselves

and not from him. He just wrote down what they said. Even if that is

accepted as correct it is not, in the view of the Panel, behaviour that can be

justified.

Several Teaching Assistants in their interviews with Witness B gave similar

accounts of Mr Nutley walking around in his lessons and in various ways

directing pupils’ attention to answers written on the board/flip chart. We see

no reason to disbelieve those accounts which are consistent with the

evidence in the exhibited assignment papers mentioned above. In addition we

can say that we felt the methodology adopted by Witness B in her

investigatory interviews was careful and appropriate and we are satisfied as to

the integrity of her investigation. It is alleged by Mr Nutley that there has been

collusion between the witnesses but we find that suggestion to be without

foundation and have heard nothing in the evidence to suggest any credible

motive for such a conspiracy.

We have examined the history scripts exhibited in the case papers. Taken in

isolation they do not, in our view, furnish sufficient evidence to persuade us

that this particular is made out in relation to history tests. However supported

by the written evidence of Witness I (p53) and Witness J (p65) we do find this

particular proved in relation to both French and History.

3. Behaved and spoke in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner to pupils:

We have already made clear our overall view of the evidence. In summary

we reject the claim that the written evidence of witnesses should be

disregarded. There are no reasons which lead us to believe the accounts

given therein are not genuine and not reliable. We find no evidence which

suggests collusion or any other questionable motive behind the accounts

those witnesses have provided.

There are numerous instances described by witnesses in the case papers of

Mr Nutley using inappropriate, sexual and abusive comments towards pupils

and behaving in an intemperate way in class. We saw a hint of that sort of

conduct when he gave his evidence on the first day of the hearing and told the

Presenting Officer to “behave”.

Some of the written accounts given by the witnesses are very specific in detail

– e.g. the alleged use of words like “necrophilia” and “scum of the earth”. We

are of the view that it beggars belief to conclude that these accounts have

been fabricated and we find no reason to think that this is a possibility.

We noted also that Witness A gave evidence to us of some instances of

inappropriate conduct towards pupils that she observed.

It is also clear that Mr Nutley himself has, to some extent changed his ground

in dealing with this particular. In his witness statement there is a robust and

absolute denial of all the allegations. In his evidence before the panel he told

us he “had no recollection” of using the word necrophilia. He said he

accepted he called Pupil J a bully and he possibly called him a thug and used

the phrase “you repulse me.”

He asserted that he was a well liked and popular teacher as did his witnesses.

We accept this may well be the case and some of the documents presented

by the Teacher in the case papers recognise this. However this does not sit

comfortably with the claim that many work colleagues have colluded to

discredit him nor does it undermine our conclusion that this particular is

proved.

We take account of the suggestion that there is significance in the absence of

complaints from pupils or parents but we are satisfied that this particular is

proved.

4. Behaved and spoke in an inappropriate and unprofessional manner to

Teaching Assistants.

We find this particular proved only in relation to the Teaching Assistant

(Individual A) which Mr Nutley admitted in his evidence. He explained that he

had apologised for his language and the incident had been resolved.

We have read accounts from other female staff who variously claim that they

felt intimidated by Mr Nutley. That may or may not be their perception but we

have neither heard nor read any evidence which persuades us to the

appropriate standard that any feeling of apprehension in relation to Mr Nutley

may have been a consequence of any identifiable behaviour on his part.

In view of our limited finding on this particular it will not contribute to our

consideration of whether, on the facts we have found established, this is a

case of Unacceptable Professional Conduct.

Findings as to Unacceptable Professional Conduct

We find that this is a case of Unacceptable Professional Conduct. Your conduct has

fallen significantly short of the standard the public are entitled to expect of members

of the profession and must be viewed as serious.

In particular you failed to establish and foster an environment of mutual respect by

your behaviour and attitude towards pupils and teaching colleagues. We view your

conduct in relation to examinations and written assessments seriously as it adversely

affects pupils’ academic progress and undermines the integrity of the

examination/assessment process.

As a class teacher you carried the responsibility for ensuring and fostering good and

courteous behaviour in and around the school.

Sadly you have fundamentally failed to treat pupils and colleagues with appropriate

dignity and to fulfil your position as a role model thus damaging the collective

reputation of the profession.

Panel’s Recommendation to the Secretary of State

We have listened carefully to the submissions made by Mr Nutley’s representative

and accept that Mr Nutley has no previous record of inappropriate conduct. We also

accept that he has produced positive testimonials from schools in Uzbekistan and

Tajikistan where he has been subsequently employed following the events which are

the subject of this case.

We are required to consider whether a Prohibition Order should be imposed in the

public interest and particularly to protect pupils and colleagues. We also have a duty

to uphold the collective reputation of the profession.

This case has concerned the regular denigration of young pupils in a special needs

school and open abuse of the public examination and assessment system in which

other more junior staff members and particularly Teaching Assistants became

embroiled. In our view that is conduct of sufficient gravity that our public duty

requires that a Prohibition Order should be recommended. We are told that Mr

Nutley may as a consequence forfeit his current employment in Tajikistan.

Nonetheless we consider that his behaviour demands that a Prohibition Order is

imposed.

Mr Nutley is aged 58 and, taking account of his general teaching record, the

references in the case papers and the evidence of his two witnesses, we believe it

would be a proportionate response to the failings exposed by this case for the

Prohibition Order to be made subject to Review after a period of 3 years has

elapsed.

Decision and Reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State

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

the Panel.

The Panel has found that Mr Nutley’s conduct fell significantly short of that expected.

Mr Nutley failed to establish and foster an environment of mutual respect by his

behaviour and through his attitude towards pupils and teaching colleagues. His

conduct in relation to examinations and written assessments was very serious as it

adversely affected pupils’ academic progress and undermined the integrity of the

examination/assessment process.

As a class teacher Mr Nutley carried the responsibility for ensuring and fostering

good and courteous behaviour in and around the school.

I have taken into account the need to reflect the public interest and to recognise the

interests of Mr Nutley. I have also taken into account the need to be proportionate.

I support the recommendation of the Panel that Mr Nutley is prohibited from

teaching.

I have also given careful consideration to the recommendation of the Panel in terms

of a review period. I have noted the matters that the Panel have considered and

support their recommendation that Mr Nutley should be able to apply to have his

Prohibition Order set aside after three years.

This means that Mr Paul Nutley 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 3 July 2016, 3 years from the date of this order at the earliest. If he does

apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the Prohibition Order should be set

aside. Without a successful application, Mr Paul Nutley remains barred from

teaching indefinitely.

This Order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the Teacher.

Mr Paul Nutley 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.

NAME OF DECISION MAKER: Alan Meyrick

Date: 27 June 2013

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

Secretary of State