Portsmouth PE teacher barred from profession after not telling school the truth about drink-driving conviction

Orry Loader, 29, was employed at Trafalgar School in Portsmouth, where he was said to be ‘strong teacher with potential’ who had quickly become an assistant head of house.

NOW READ: Worried cat owner receives blackmail call after pet goes missing

He was brought before a Teaching Regulation Agency panel after he was arrested in May last year for drink-driving and charged with not providing a sample. He faced allegations connected not just to the crime but the fact he failed to declare it to the school and then lied about a court appearance.

The panel heard Mr Loader told a member of staff that he had been out drinking with friends.

He said as he thought he was not fit to drive he left his car at a friend's house and went to pick it up the following morning. He then picked up the car and he was pulled over by the police as they believed he was driving erratically and thought he was under the influence of alcohol.

The report says: ‘He told her that the breathalyser did not work at the side of the road and he voluntarily went to the police station to use the breathalyser there. He further stated that he was then asked to provide a blood sample, however the health care assistant was not available for this so he was asked to provide a first urine sample, which he did. He was unable to provide a second urine sample which resulted in him being charged with failing to provide a specimen.’

However, evidence from the police said that Mr Loader was suspected of being under the influence of alcohol when pulled over. He failed a roadside breathalyser test and was then arrested.

The report says: ‘Witness A… felt sorry for Mr Loader and angry on his behalf as it seemed like this was an unfortunate series of events that led to him being required to give samples to the police. She was subsequently really angry upon receiving the police officer's account as it appeared to her that Mr Loader had lied to her.’

At last month’s hearing Loader, who represented himself, faced six allegations relating to the May 29 arrest.

The first allegation was that he had been convicted of failing to provide a sample for analysis.

He then faced five allegations of ‘unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

He did not tell the school about his arrest and charge; he told a colleague he had to attend a dentist appointment when in fact it was a court date; he did not inform the school about his conviction; and he did not provide the school with the full picture when he eventually spoke to someone. The sixth allegation was that the last four points were dishonest.

The panel was told that Mr Loader’s reason for not telling the school was because his solicitor ‘advised him that he was innocent until proven otherwise and he should not tell the school of his arrest as he could get into a lot of trouble’.

The panel was also shown a WhatsApp message in which Mr Loader said he needed the time off for a dental appointment, and ruled instead of going ‘to some length to create a story’ he should have said he needed the time for personal reasons.

This was the only one of the four allegations in which the panel found dishonesty, although it found them all proven except for ‘providing the full picture’.

The panel concluded that Mr Loader's conduct ‘amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute’.

He has been barred indefinitely and cannot appeal this for two years.

Sarah Buxcey made the decision on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education and wrote: ‘I have placed considerable weight on the finding that “The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Loader. Mr Loader's personal health and family circumstances were indeed stressful at the time but this did not excuse his behaviour. The severity of his criminal offence and the fact he chose to provide a false reason for needing time off school were significant factors in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect".’