A trainee music teacher has escaped a ban despite being convicted of assaulting a pupil by picking her up by her ankles and holding her upside down.
On or around February 3 in 2022 a parent complained to Seascale School in Cumbria that Sean Haythornthwaite had lifted up a pupil by her ankles and held her upside down in front of other children. Mr Haythornthwaite was arrested and in March that year he was charged but failed to inform his bosses at Cumbria County Council.
A Teaching Regulation Agency ruling, published this week, reveals that the teacher’s first court appearance was on Tuesday April 19 but he lied about why he was absent from an inset day. He later insisted he had not been trying to mislead his employer but had difficulty communicating with his boss.
A week later, Mr Haythornthwaite, who was working to achieve qualified teacher status, informed his bosses of the charge against him and he was suspended. On July 22 in 2022 he was convicted of assault and sentenced to 150 hours of unpaid work and told to pay £100 compensation. He resigned two months later.
Witnesses to the incident involving the pupil described feeling “utterly shocked” with one saying he “seemed broken” afterwards.
Witness A said that she was “utterly shocked” when she heard about the allegation. She said “I couldn’t believe it. It was “very much out of character”. She described Mr Haythornthwaite as having always having a “quiet and calm” manner.
Witness B said that Mr Haythornthwaite “certainly had regret for what he did”. Witness C said “He was upset”…” He was really distressed… He was a bit devastated. He just seemed broken.”
Mr Haythornthwaite later insisted he was simply trying to cheer up the pupil and said: “I took a parental role in a situation to try and cheer a child up because they are my responsibility and because I did not have the knowledge to keep myself safe in a teaching environment I made a well intended but poor choice, one that ruined my life and destroyed my teaching career.”
“After discussing the charge notification with the solicitor, I asked him what I should tell my employer, he told me to ‘Hang fire for now’ as in his words the charge was ‘Nonsense’ and felt the case would be dropped upon review. After discussing my case with my new solicitor I asked what to tell my employer regarding the case and the hearing and he said to see what happened at the hearing as in his opinion he felt the case would be dropped upon review.
“In summary, I never sought to mislead my employer about the charge, I simply followed the advice of my legal team. I knew at some point I would need to inform my employer about the charge, even if the case was dropped. Had the advice from either solicitor at any point prior to the hearing been to contact my employer and inform them I would have done so.”
The panel noted that Mr Haythornthwaite would have known about the court hearing date in advance 2022 and therefore would have had ample opportunity to update his employer about his absence ahead of this date, but he failed to do so.
In response Mr Haythornthwaite said that he had not felt “comfortable” telling the member of staff for the reason for his absence.
He said: “I appreciate that me telling [REDACTED] I could not face attending inset as my reason for my absence was a poor choice, and I understand that may be perceived as lacking integrity. However, my reason for doing so was to simply avoid interacting with a colleague I did not feel comfortable communicating with especially when it was regarding a horrible experience I have just had and continuing to go through.”
Despite the teacher’s actions bringing the profession into disrepute and placing a pupil at risk of harm a Teaching Regulation Agency panel noted that he had received little support or training as part of his bid to obtain qualified teacher status.
The panel said they were “of the view that Mr Haythornthwaite did not have the experience and the level of training and ongoing support that comes with obtaining qualified teacher status. He was only observed once a year and his only previous experience had been in teaching adults”.
The panel did not make an order preventing Mr Haythornthwaite from teaching and concluded: “The panel took the view that Mr Haythornthwaite’s conduct was not malicious and was out of character. The panel further expressed the view that there was no intent by Mr Haythornthwaite to harm Pupil A.
“The panel noted that there was no opposing evidence to suggest that there was another reason for Mr Haythornthwaite’s conduct other than simply trying to cheer Pupil A up to make her laugh.”
The panel added: “The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.”
Subscribe to our daily newsletter LANCS LIVE NEWS and get all the biggest stories from across Lancashire direct to your inbox