Mr Adam Binns

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: Mr Adam Binns

Teacher reference number: 0855188

Teacher's date of birth: 18 July 1990

Location teacher worked: Lincolnshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 November 2025 to 21 November 2025 and 25 November 2025.

Outcome type: Prohibition order

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 Mr Adam Binns formerly employed in Lincolnshire, East Midlands.

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.

Mr Adam Binns: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Adam Binns Teacher ref number: 855188 Teacher date of birth: 18 July 1990 TRA reference: 20360 Date of determination: 25 November 2025 Former employer: Bourne Grammar School, Bourne Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 to 21 and 25 November 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Adam Binns. The panel members were Miss Victoria Miller (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist) and Mr Adam Michie-Carr (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lara Small of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Scott Smith of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Binns was present and was represented by Mr Gurmair Singh of JSC Chambers. The hearing took place in public (save that portions of the hearing were heard in private) and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in th e notice of proceedings dated 4 August 2025. It was alleged that Mr Binns was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disreput e, in that while employed as a teacher at Bourne Grammar School: 1. On one or more occasions, on or around 15-16 December 2017, he: a) Put his hand(s) under Pupil A’s clothing, b) Put his hand(s) down Pupil A’s underwear, and/or c) Touched and/or stroked Pupil A’s vulva and/or vagina. 2. On or around 15-16 December 2017, he: a) Shared a taxi with Pupil A and/or Pupil B and/or Pupil C; b) Asked Pupil B if he could enter her home residence; c) Said to Pupil A and/or Pupil B words to the effect of: “ don’t tell anyone what happened, because I love my job, I don’t wanna lose my job, you girls know I love my job” and/or “it’ll be your fault if I lose my job”, d) Said to Pupil A words to the effect of: “do you want to get naughty with me?”, 3. On or around 22 December 2017, he said to Pupil A or words to that effect: a) “I put my hands down your pants” and/or “I fingered you in the back of the taxi”, b) “is it weird that I find you attractive”, c) In response to asking Pupil A if someone was their partner, “it’s a shame because I think you would have really liked it”. 4. His conduct, as may be proven in all and/or any of allegations 1 to 3 was sexually motivated; 5. Between 15 December 2017 and January 2018, he failed to notify the School about his contact with Pupil A and Pupil B as may be proven in all or any part of allegation 2; 6. His conduct in allegation 5 was dishonest in that he knew he was required to notify the School. 5 In respect of the allegations set out above, Mr Binns made some admissions of fact in that he admitted allegation 2(a) and that allegation 5 occurred , but he did not admit that this amounted to unacceptable conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Binns denied all other allegations above. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 44 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 45 to 61 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 62 to 333 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 334 to 341 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • An additional bundle containing Pupil C’s local statement dated 10 January 2018, Pupil C’s police interview transcript dated 17 January 2018 and the correspondence between Pupil C and the TRA – pages 1 to 55 • Character references from Individual D dated 26 September 2022, from Individual E dated 26 September 2022 and from Individual F (undated) – 3 pages. • An email from Mr Binns to his trade union representative dated 22 October 2025 confirming the date he approved his witness statement. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness 1 – [REDACTED] 6 Witness 2 – Pupil A Witness 3 – Pupil B The panel also heard oral evidence from the teacher, Mr Binns. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Binns commenced employment at Bourne Grammar School (‘the School’) in September 2010. On 15 – 16 December 2017, Mr Binns allegedly shared a taxi with 3 female pupils, during which he allegedly put his hand down Pupil A’s underwear and touched her vagina. On the same night, Mr Binns allegedly asked to come into Pupil B’s house after the taxi stopped and asked the pupils to not repeat what he had done. On 22 December 2017, Mr Binns allegedly said to Pupil A that he found her attractive, that he “put his hands down her pants” and/or “fingered (her) in the back of the taxi” and “it’s a shame because I think you would have really liked it”. Mr Binns allegedly did not inform the School of any of the events, as alleged. The matter was referred to the TRA on 22 October 2021. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On one or more occasions, on or around 15-16 December 2017, you: a) Put your hand(s) under Pupil A’s clothing. b) Put your hand(s) down Pupil A’s underwear, and/or c) Touched and/or stroked Pupil A’s vulva and/or vagina. The panel considered the witness statement of Pupil A dated 27 March 2024, who stated that on Friday 15 December 2017 [REDACTED]. She stated that she and her friends saw Mr Binns at a bar, and they said hi to each other at the bar. Pupil A stated that Mr Binns 7 said to her “you’re going to make me lose my job”, and she asked him why and he looked her up and down. In her statement, Pupil A stated that Mr Binns insisted they got a taxi rather than walk ed back to Pupil B’s house, and that he got into the taxi after she had. She stated that whilst they were waiting for the final person, Pupil C, to get into the taxi, Mr Binns sat next to her in the back of the taxi and put his hand up her dress and into her underwear. She stated that she wore a dress that came to just above her knees and her boots were knee high. In her statement, Pupil A stated that Mr Binns put his hand down her pants and started to rub. She stated that she could not remember if he put a finger inside of her but it felt as though he had. Pupil A stated that she remembered moving his hand away once and looking out of the window and Mr Binns put his hand in her pants again and continued to rub, so she moved his hand away again for a second time. In her witness statement, Pupil A stated that Mr Binns touched her at least twice in her pants. The panel considered the local statement that Pupil A had provided to the school on 10 January 2018 in which Pupil A stated in relation to the taxi journey “before the car even started to move I remember him putting his hands up my dress and into my pants. I moved his hand several times but he kept putting it back. He started to put his fingers inside me. I moved his arm again.” The panel considered Pupil A’s account in her police interview on 25 January 2018 in which she stated “um he told [Redacted] to sit in the front, um, I got in the back so I was behind the driver, he was in the middle…he basically put his hands on my leg and then started to, like, move it down to my vagina and then, like, kind of, feeling around, like in my pants.” The panel considered Pupil A’s oral testimony in which she was emphatic that this had happened. The panel considered Pupil B’s witness statement and oral testimony, noting that Pupil B confirmed that she didn’t see anything happen in the taxi between Pupil A and Mr Binns. The panel noted Pupil B’s evidence that the taxi journey was silent and that the jo urney didn’t last long. The panel considered in her oral evidence, Pupil B stated that she saw Mr Binns was in the middle back seat of the taxi at the time when Pupil C got into the car. In Pupil B’s most contemporaneous statement on 16 January 2018, she stated that “Mr Binns then proceeded to get in the back of the taxi and go into the middle”. The panel considered Mr Binns’ account that he only moved into the middle seat later on after the taxi had moved off and collected Pupil C from a short distance away. The panel was not convinced by this based on the contemporaneous corroboratory evidence given by Pupil A and Pupil B. The panel considered Mr Binns’ witness statement in which he adamantly denied sexually assaulting Pupil A, describing the allegations as “utter lies”. The panel considered Mr Binns’ 8 oral evidence in which he denied putting his hand up Pupil A’s dress, into her underwear or stroking her vagina. The panel considered the timings and the length of the taxi being stationary as well as the length of the taxi ride from [REDACTED] to Pupil B’s house. On Pupil A’s account, the touching happened whilst the car was stationary from the time w