Richard Williams

Introduction

Richard Williams is a former physical education teacher at Alderman Knight Special School in Gloucestershire, where he worked from 1 September 2011 until 31 August 2019. In July 2021 a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found that he had failed to register pupils for a Sports Leaders UK qualification, allowed them to believe they had completed it, and then handed three of them forged certificates to conceal what had happened. Williams admitted the allegations, and the case was decided on the papers without a hearing. On 21 July 2021 the decision maker, Sarah Buxcey, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, with no review period.

Background Information

Williams was born on 7 March 1976 and held TRA reference 19138. Between 2013 and 2019, part of his role at the special school was running the Sports Leaders UK Level 1 and Level 2 leadership qualification for a group of its pupils. That work carried three specific duties: registering pupils on the course, supervising them through it, and submitting their completed work for assessment. The qualification is a nationally recognised award, the kind of credential that counts on a school leaver’s record, which made his stewardship of it more than an administrative side duty.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Years of failed course registrations, then forged certificates handed to pupils’ parents.

The failure ran for years. A Sports Leaders compliance report showed that pupils Williams had registered in 2013 to 2015 and again in 2017 to 2018 had their registrations cancelled, and that from 2017 to 2019 no pupils were registered at all. Individual B, a compliance manager at Sports Leaders, said three pupils were registered in 2013 but their names were never provided, and that no learners were registered in 2017. Individual C, the school’s examinations officer, found a box of pupils’ written work in a cupboard which had never been submitted for assessment.

The pupils, meanwhile, believed they had finished the course. Text messages between Individual C and Williams recorded parents asking why their children’s certificates had never arrived. In November 2019 one parent contacted the school seeking a copy of their child’s Sports Leaders qualification. A colleague raised the matter with Williams, who confirmed that the certificates would be provided. In January 2020 he produced forged certificates for three pupils. Individual C noticed they carried an outdated logo and no watermark; Individual B confirmed that Sports Leaders had issued no certificates over the relevant period; and Individual A confirmed that the signature on one or more of them was not hers. In a letter to Sports Leaders dated 20 February 2020, Williams accepted that he had issued the certificates.

Williams admitted the facts in a statement of agreed facts signed on 7 September 2020 and in an email from his union representative dated 14 May 2020. The TRA agreed to his request that the allegation be considered without a hearing, and a panel convened virtually on 15 July 2021 reviewed the case at a meeting without the presenting officer, Williams or any representative on his behalf in attendance.

On the first allegation, failing to register pupils and submit their work, the panel found the facts proved but was not satisfied the conduct was dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people; it found instead that it lacked integrity. On the remaining allegations it went further. The panel found proved that Williams had held himself out as delivering a course the pupils had never properly been entered for, that he permitted them to believe their work had been submitted and the course completed, while noting there was no evidence he had explicitly told them so, and that he provided falsified certificates and forged Individual A’s signature. On each of those counts the panel found his conduct both dishonest and lacking integrity.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel treated the concealment as the aggravating heart of the case. The dishonesty, it found, “was not an isolated incident” but took place over a period of time and was then aggravated by the attempt to cover it up. The pupils’ loss was concrete: through Williams’s failure they were never registered, never completed the course, and were misled into believing they had gained a “formal and nationally recognised qualification”. The panel also found his conduct was likely to have had a reputational impact on the school. It concluded the misconduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and recommended a prohibition order with no review period, finding the case met the criteria for serious dishonesty. Although Williams had admitted the conduct and expressed remorse, the panel was not satisfied he had shown adequate insight to exclude the risk of repetition.

Current Status

On 21 July 2021 Sarah Buxcey, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State, accepted the panel’s recommendation. She placed considerable weight on the serious dishonesty found proven and the lack of full insight, and concluded that a prohibition order was proportionate and in the public interest. Williams is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Because of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, he is not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach, meaning the ban has no review period and cannot lapse. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, with a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days of notice.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The order ends Williams’s teaching career outright. The panel noted that he wished to remain in the profession and that positive references had supported his appointment at the school, although they were by then around ten years old; the decision maker gave that contribution less weight than the findings of sustained dishonesty and concealment. The panel also acknowledged his previously good record, with no previous findings against him, but found no evidence that his actions were anything other than deliberate. For the pupils concerned, the panel’s assessment was that they were let down twice over: first by never receiving the qualification they had worked toward, and then by certificates that were forged in its place.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Richard Williams” — source