Yorkshire grammar school teacher banned from profession for sexually assaulting colleague

Andrew Parkinson, 41, was the director of learning for mathematics and technology at a grammar school in West Yorkshire, until he resigned in January 2019.

He was accused of touching a colleague’s breasts and legs, without her consent, and kissing the side of her face, during a car journey in November 2018.

Mr Parkinson denied the allegation, but the school conducted an investigation and found it was substantiated. He was also told his actions amounted to gross misconduct and he would be sacked if he did not resign.

He resigned two months later and his case was referred to the Teaching Regulation Agency.

Following a hearing held earlier this month, a misconduct panel found the allegation was proven and Mr Parkinson should be banned from teaching indefinitely.

The incident was also reported to West Yorkshire Police and Mr Parkinson was arrested, but the Crown Prosecution Service did not proceed with a prosecution.

In a prepared statement, Mr Parkinson told the misconduct panel he had “quite a bit to drink” before the car journey in November 2018 and he wanted to sit in the back and sleep.

Mr Parkison said he placed his colleague’s legs over his during the journey, had a beer and fell asleep, but phoned her after the journey because she was upset.

The victim, who cannot be named, told the misconduct panel Mr Parkinson had been a caring, approachable and well-respected teacher at the school and she thought of him as her “work dad”.

But she also said Mr Parkinson was very drunk on the night of the incident and he had made inappropriate comments about her breasts.

The victim told the panel that when they got into the car, he placed her legs onto his lap before touching her breasts and legs.

She said it “felt like time stood still” and she tried to ignore him and block everything out, but felt “desperate, lonely and scared”.

The driver and two other passengers told the misconduct panel that Mr Parkinson was very drunk and he wanted to sit in the back, even though he had previously told them he needed to sit in the front to avoid travel sickness.

None of them witnessed the assault and said they were in a dark car, on unlit roads, and music was playing. But they recalled the victim becoming upset after leaving the car.

When she told one of the passenger’s what had happened, he decided to treat it as a “safeguarding disclosure” and took down her account in writing.

The misconduct panel said the victim admitted she had been drinking, but it found her evidence was “both credible and candid” and it was “significant” that she reported the incident to a colleague immediately and followed it up with a police report the next day.

The panel also questioned Mr Parkinson’s evidence and said he failed to explain why he sat in the back, why he placed his colleague’s legs on his lap and why he decided to get out of the car 2km from his house and walk the rest of the way home.

In a report it added: “The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate.

“The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Parkinson.

“The seriousness of the misconduct, the lack of insight or remorse for his actions and the grave impact his actions have had on Colleague A (the victim) were significant factors in forming that opinion.”