Dr James Alsop

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Dr James Alsop

Location teacher worked: Devon, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 3 to 6 March 2025 and 7 and 10 March 2025

Outcome type: No order made

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Dr James Alsop formerly employed in Devon, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Dr James Alsop: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 11 Documents 11 Witnesses 11 Decision and reasons 12 Findings of fact 12 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 35 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 39 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Dr James Alsop TRA reference: 21760 Date of determination: 10 March 2025 Former employer: Torquay Girls Grammar School, Devon (“TGGS”) and Chelmsford County High School for Girls, Chelmsford (“CCHS”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 3 March 2025 to 6 March 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, and by way of a virtual hearing on 7 March 2025 and 10 March 2025, to consider the case of Dr Alsop. The panel members were Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Pamela Thompson (lay panellist) and Mr Richard Young (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Charles Drinnan of Two Harcourt Buildings instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Dr Alsop was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of the Reflective Practice. The hearing took place in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 11 December 2024. It was alleged that Dr Alsop was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. Whilst working as a Teacher at Chelmsford County High School for Girls: a) Between around February 2016 and December 2019, Mr Alsop engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or failed to maintain professional boundaries with Person A, in that he: i) Met Socially with Person A between classes and/or outside of school; ii) Exchanged messages of an inappropriate and/or personal nature; iii) Exchanged messages which were excessive in number and/or frequency; iv) Engaged in telephone calls which were in excessive in frequency and/or length; v) Sent letter(s) of an inappropriate and/or personal nature; vi) Sent cards and gifts; vii) Were emotionally manipulative and/or abusive, [REDACTED] if Person A ceased contact. b) Between around October 2018 and August 2019, Dr Alsop engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or failed to maintain professional boundaries with Person B, in that he: i) Developed a ‘friendship’ which went beyond an acceptable student/teacher relationship; ii) Exchanged messages of an inappropriate and/or personal nature. c) Between around January 2017 and June 2019, Dr Alsop engaged in an inappropriate relationship and/or failed to maintain professional boundaries with Person C, in that he: i) Developed a ‘friendship’ which went beyond an acceptable student/teacher relationship; ii) Exchanged messages of an inappropriate and/or personal nature. 2. Whilst working as a Teacher at Torquay Girls’ Grammar School, between around October 2020 and February 2022, Dr Alsop exchanged direct messages of an inappropriate and/or informal nature with one or more pupils, which were: a) of a considerable volume; b) sent late at night and/or on weekends; 5 c) unrelated to school; d) over-familiar in nature, in that he permitted pupils to call him by a nickname. 3. Dr Alsop’s conduct at paragraph 1 amounted to harassment and/or grooming. 4. Dr Alsop’s conduct at paragraph 1 was sexually motivated. Dr Alsop admitted allegations 1(b)-(c) and 2(a)-(d). Dr Alsop admitted allegations 1(a)(ii)-(vi) insofar as they related to the timeframe after Person A left CCHS. Dr Alsop denied the allegations insofar as they related to the timeframe within which he taught Person A at CCHS. Dr Alsop admitted allegation 1(a)(vii) in respect of his messages being emotionally manipulative and abusive. [REDACTED] Dr Alsop denied allegation 3, save for his last two interactions with Person A which he admitted amounted to harassment. Dr Alsop denied allegations 1(a)(i) and 4. Dr Alsop admitted the facts of allegation 1 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Dr Alsop made no assertion as to whether the remaining allegations 2, 3 and 4 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and therefore this was not admitted. Preliminary applications The panel noted the previous decision at a case management hearing (the “CMH”) which was conducted on the papers without the attendance of the parties on 14 February 2025. The CMH concerned two applications made by the presenting officer on behalf of the TRA for special measures for Person A, Person B and Person C, and for Person D to give evidence remotely. The panel directed to permit Person D to give evidence remotely, and for Person A, Person B and Person C to give evidence remotely so that they could not see Dr Alsop and Dr Alsop could not see them and they were permitted a supporter. Additionally, Dr Alsop would only be able to cross-examine Person A, Person B or Person C through a representative. 6 The panel considered the following preliminary applications: Application for the teacher to have special measures The panel considered an application from Dr Alsop’s representative to provide special measures to the teacher. The panel heard submissions from Dr Alsop’s representative as to why Dr Alsop should be permitted a companion to attend the hearing, as Dr Alsop was a vulnerable witness under the definition in paragraph 5.102 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (the “Procedures”). The presenting officer made no objection to the application. The panel considered the evidence in the bundle which outlined the extent of Mr Alsop’s [REDACTED] which included Dr Alsop’s witness statement, [REDACTED] notes and letters [REDACTED]. The panel was satisfied that the quality of Dr Alsop’s evidence would likely be adversely affected [REDACTED]. As such, the panel determined that Dr Alsop be treated as a vulnerable witness and be provided special consideration. The panel noted it could adopt such measures as it considered appropriate in order to safeguard the interests of the teacher as a vulnerable witness pursuant to paragraph 5.103 of the Procedures, which could include the attendance of a supporter. The panel was satisfied that the attendance of a supporter was an appropriate measure to facilitate Dr Alsop’s effective participation at the hearing [REDACTED]. The panel therefore accepted the application and directed that Dr Alsop be permitted to have a companion throughout the duration of the hearing. Application to exclude the public from the hearing The panel considered an application from Dr Alsop’s representative to exclude the public from the hearing. The panel heard submissions from Dr Alsop’s representative as to why the public should be excluded from the hearing. Dr Alsop’s representative submitted that matters concerning Dr Alsop’s [REDACTED] was relevant to the factual matrix of the allegations, that this was sensitive personal data and so the whole hearing should be in private. [REDACTED]. As aforementioned in the special measures application, Dr Alsop’s representative stated that Dr Alsop was a vulnerable witness under the definition in paragraph 5.102 of the Procedures which supports the requirement for a private hearing, as this is a measure the panel can put in place to safeguard Dr Alsop. 7 The panel heard submissions from the presenting officer who objected to the application to exclude the public from all of the hearing, but made no objection to exclude the public from parts of the hearing when reference was to be made to Dr Alsop’s [REDACTED]. The presenting officer submitted that he did not dispute that matters relating to Dr Alsop’s [REDACTED] could be heard in private, however, not all matters to be heard would relate to Dr Alsop’s [REDACTED]. The presenting officer noted that the TRA’s case did not rely on anything related to Dr Alsop’s [REDACTED] and anything that referenced this could be compartmentalised as the panel was experienced in managing part of the hearing in private. The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 5.85 of the Procedures to exclude the public from the hearing. The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is generally desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. The panel noted there were concerns about confidential matters relating to [REDACTED] being placed in the public domain. The panel balanced the reasons why Dr Alsop’s representative had requested that the public be excluded against the competing reasons for which a public hearing is required. The panel noted that any departure from the general rule had to be no greater than the extent reasonably necessary and that interference for a limited period of the hearing was preferable to a permanent exclusion of the public. The panel therefore considered whether there were any steps short of excluding the public from all of the hearing that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to [REDACTED] The panel had particular regard to Dr Alsop b