Mr Andrew Brook

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 Andrew Brook

Teacher reference number: 8749211

Teacher's date of birth: 3 August 1963

Location teacher worked: Hexham, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 June 2025 to 5 June 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 Andrew Brook formerly employed in Hexham, North East 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.

Mr Andrew Brook: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 23 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 28 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Andrew Brook Teacher ref number: 8749211 Teacher date of birth: 3 August 1963 TRA reference: 20420 Date of determination: 5 June 2025 Former employer: Queen Elizabeth High School, Northumberland Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 to 5 June 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Andrew Brook. The panel members were Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist) and Mrs Miranda Norris (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nicholas West of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Howard Tobias of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Brook was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private. The hearing was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 17 March 2025. It was alleged that Mr Brook was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, whilst employed as a Teacher at Queen Elizabeth High School, Whetstone Bridge Road, Hexham, Northumberland, NE46 3JB (‘the School’): 1. Between in or around March 2019 and August 2020, he developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A while she was a student at the School, in that: a) In around March/April 2019, he caused or allowed Pupil A to sit on his knee [REDACTED]; b) On one or more occasions, he allowed Pupil A to use his classroom as a revision space; c) In around April 2019, he sent Pupil A a message via Facebook Messenger saying that he hoped her [REDACTED] exam had gone well, or words to this effect; d) Between around July 2019 and August 2020, he exchanged messages of a personal nature with Pupil A via Facebook Messenger and/or WhatsApp; e) Between in or around September and November 2019, he assisted Pupil A to buy a [REDACTED]; f) On one or more occasions between September 2019 and January 2020, he went out with Pupil A [REDACTED]; g) In around December 2019, he gave Pupil A a Christmas present; h) In around January 2020, he assisted Pupil A to get [REDACTED] fixed after she had an accident; i) In around January 2020, he told Pupil A that he had feelings for her, or words to this effect; j) On one or more occasions between January 2020 and August 2020, he kissed Pupil A; k) On one or more occasions between February 2020 and August 2020, he had sexual intercourse with Pupil A; l) On one or more occasions between February 2020 and August 2020, he bought alcohol for Pupil A; 5 m) On one or more occasions between February 2020 and August 2020, he told Pupil A that he loved her, or words to this effect. 2. On one or more occasions between around September 2020 and April 2021, after Pupil A had left the School, he: a) Visited Pupil A at University; b) Smoked marijuana with Pupil A; c) Drank alcohol with Pupil A; d) Had sexual intercourse with Pupil A. 3. His conduct in paragraph 1 and/or 2 above was: a) A failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries b) Sexually motivated. 4. On the 22 April 2021 and the 5 July 2021 he was untruthful and or misled the investigation in regards to the nature and extent of his relationship with Pupil A. 5. His conduct as set out in allegation 4 was dishonest. Mr Brook stated that he ‘partly’ admitted the allegations, but that he admitted his actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as set out in his undated response to the notice of referral dated 8 September 2022. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised person list and list of key people – pages 5 to 9 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 10 to 42 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 43 to 66 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 67 to 229 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 230 to 262 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: 6 A policy documents bundle consisting of 74 pages; A proceeding in absence bundle consisting of 17 pages; A redacted TRA referral form consisting of 19 pages; A teacher’s additional documents bundle consisting of 8 pages; and A bundle of draft statements of agreed facts consisting of 23 pages. The panel was satisfied that the additional documents had been provided to Mr Brook in advance of the hearing in accordance with the Procedures. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle in advance of the hearing and the additional documents. 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: Pupil A Person C – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] 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 Brook commenced employment at Queen Elizabeth High School (‘the School’) on 1 September 1995. A School trip [REDACTED] took place [REDACTED], and Pupil A allegedly sat on Mr Brook’s knee [REDACTED]. Between April and June 2019, Pupil A often spent time in Mr Brook’s classroom, to revise. Mr Brook allegedly sent Pupil A a message on Facebook saying that he hoped her exams had gone well. In September 2019, Pupil A started her last year of School and spent a lot of time in Mr Brook’s classroom. Mr Brook allegedly continued to exchange messages with Pupil A. 7 Between September and December 2019, Mr Brook assisted Pupil A to find a [REDACTED] to buy, and they went out [REDACTED] together. Mr Brook allegedly gave Pupil A a Christmas present. Mr Brook allegedly told Pupil A he had feelings for her and kissed her. The relationship allegedly became sexual between February and August 2020, and during this period Mr Brook engaged in sexual intercourse with Pupil A, bought Pupil A alcohol, and told Pupil A he loved her. The relationship allegedly continued whilst Pupil A started University, and Mr Brook is alleged to have visited Pupil A, to have smoked marijuana, drunk alcohol and engaged in sexual intercourse with her between September 2020 and April 2021. The matter was referred to the TRA on 22 November 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. Between in or around March 2019 and August 2020, you developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A while she was a student at the School, in that: a) In around March/April 2019, you caused or allowed Pupil A to sit on your knee [REDACTED]; The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Pupil A, who stated that in around March - April 2019, [REDACTED] Mr Brook was in the front with the driver, and she was in the back with two other girls. Pupil A explained that the driver told Mr Brook that there were police ahead and he was not supposed to carry a passenger in the front, and so Mr Brook asked Pupil A if she could “sit on his lap for a few minutes” whilst [REDACTED] went past the police. Pupil A stated that once they had gone past the police, Mr Brook returned to the front seat. Pupil A’s oral evidence at the hearing was consistent with her written statement and she confirmed that she sat “sideways with my legs towards the other girls”. Pupil A confirmed that her thighs were on top of Mr Brook’s thighs with her legs down to the floor and she accepted she was sat on Mr Brook’s knee and lap. The panel considered the written evidence of Mr Brook where he accepted that this incident had taken place in his undated response to the notice of referral dated 8 8 September 2022, but he submitted that “someone had to sit across the legs of three passengers not just on my knee”. The panel noted the documentary evidence provided relating to an investigation meeting on 12 July 2019 by Individual D, [REDACTED], into two reports by students involving Mr Brook’s actions during the [REDACTED] ride. The notes from this investigation meeting confirmed that Mr Brook stated Pupil A “was sitting over 3 people, not just me”. The panel preferred the evidence provided by Pupil A that Mr Brook had directed her to sit on his lap and/or knee and, on the balance of probabilities, considered that allegation 1(a) was proven. b) On one or more occasions, you allowed Pupil A to use your classroom as a revision space; The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Pupil A, who stated that during her free periods and lunch breaks she would spend time in Mr Brook’s classroom as she “just liked being in his room” and “it was a nice space to work”. Pupil A’s oral evidence was consistent with her written statement that she used Mr Brook’s classroom a lot as a study space as she did not have anyone to sit with and didn’t like sitting in the library as “it was obvious I was alone”. Person C’s written statement and oral evidence corroborated Pupil A’s oral account that she was not able to concentrate when studying in the library [REDACTED]. Person