There followed a messenger screenshot showing contact from John Winkle Disciplinary action
There followed a messenger screenshot showing contact from John Winkle.
Disciplinary action
WF contacted RR. He told him not to attend at the college on 1July, but to be available for a Zoom meeting at 9.15am. He suspended RR on full pay.
There was a disciplinary hearing held by Zoom on 1 July 2022. It lasted 15 minutes. RR was present, as were CD and WF. According to the notes of the meeting (page 143), it lasted from 9.30am to 9.45am. According to the record:
WF began the meeting by thanking RR for attending and asking whether he knew what the allegations against him were regarding.
RR stated that he was not sure what the allegations were about.
WF outlined that there was an allegation about his conduct toward a student, and asked to confirm if he knew what that might be in relation to.
RR again stated that he was not sure.
WF outlined that there had been an allegation made in regard to his conduct and requesting a phone number from a student
RR stated that he had not done this, and was confused and that he had not contacted a student.
WF asked if RR had exchanged contact details with a student
RR talked about not exchanging details with a student, but seemed to contradict himself. When WF asked directly if he has exchanged numbers with a student he said that he had. He then proceeded to defend his actions, and said it was OK because he had not contacted her.
WF summarised that RR had confirmed that he had obtained a phone number from a student but that he had not contacted that student.
WF then asked to explain how the student had come to have his contact number.
RR denied that he had given his number. However, after then describing the event further he did say that he had given the number a missed call so that she also had his number. He denied making any further contact.
WF re-confirmed that RR had obtained the students number and called it so that she then had his number.
RR confirmed that this had been the case.
WF asked RR if he had any questions or if there was anything else useful for us to know.
RR asked what would happen next.
WF thanked RR for his answers and outlined the next steps of the investigation and that we would be in contact.
After the hearing, RR resigned by email (page 140):
I know I have breached the safeguarding policy for which I am accountable. I apologize for getting a student's phone number which I have not saved on my mobile and never contacted her. I have never called, texted or talked to any of my students over the phone. I have never messaged or called any of my students through social media applications. I do not have the contact details of any students with me and I am not interested in having them. I have never had any bad intentions towards my students. Please consider this email as my resignation or dismiss my contract, and I will never be offended. Even if I am innocent, I will not be comfortable working with the same team again as I will always be a criminal in their eyes.
- Heading
- This decision is given under section 4 of the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act 2006 (SVGA from now on)
- Reasons for Decision DBS’s decision and findings
- The appeal to the Upper Tribunal
- Section 4 SVGA
- RR’s account
- KK’s allegation
- There followed a messenger screenshot showing contact from John Winkle Disciplinary action
- The LADO report
- KK’s allegation
- The disciplinary hearing
- The John Winkle message
- CM’s partiality
- Conclusions
![[2024] UKUT 171 (AAC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_3a2BKne.png)