Mr Anton Harder

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 Anton Harder

Teacher reference number: 1062753

Teacher's date of birth: 9 April 1988

Location teacher worked: Thetford, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 December 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 Anton Harder, formerly employed in Thetford, East of England.

Mr Anton Harder: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Anton Harder Teacher ref number: 1062753 Teacher date of birth: 9 April 1988 TRA reference: 21802 Date of determination: 12 December 2025 Former employer: Wayland Academy, Thetford. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 December 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Anton Harder. The panel members were Mr Tom Snowdon (teacher panellist – in the chair), Dr Sian Evans (lay panellist) and Mrs Victoria Kelly (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Harder that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Harder provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Jordan Wilford or Mr Harder. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 26 September 2025. It was alleged that Mr Harder was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that on 5 April 2023, he was convicted at Norwich Crown Court of: 1. 4 counts of sexual activity with a female aged 13 – 17, offender does not believe victim is over 18, abuse of position of trust, contrary to section 16(1)(e)(i) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Harder admitted the allegation and that he was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 5 to 91 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Harder on 16 May 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Harder for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be 5 considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Harder was employed as a lead professional [REDACTED] at Wayland Academy (“the Academy”) from 1 September 2011. The principal of the Academy was informed on 21 September 2021, that Norfolk Police had received a complaint regarding an alleged sexual relationship between Mr Harder and a former student from the Academy. Mr Harder was arrested on 23 September 2021. Mr Harder was referred to the TRA on 11 April 2023. 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: On 5 April 2023, you were convicted at Norwich Crown Court of: 1. 4 counts of sexual activity with a female aged 13 – 17, offender does not believe victim is over 18, abuse of position of trust, contrary to section 16(1)(e)(i) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In Mr Harder’s response to the notice of hearing dated 17 April 2025, he admitted this allegation. He also admitted this allegation in a statement of agreed facts signed by him on 16 May 2025. The panel was provided with the certificate of conviction which confirmed that he was convicted on 1 February 2023 at Norwich Crown Court of the offences as set out above and sentenced on 5 April 2023 to 16 months’ imprisonment. He was required to register with the police for ten years, and a sexual harm prevention order was made also for ten years. He was ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £149. The panel noted that Mr Harder had pleaded guilty to the offences. The panel noted that a PNC record corroborated the above details, save for referring to a date of conviction of 5 April 2023, rather than 1 February 2023. The panel noted that there was a discrepancy between the certificate of conviction and the PNC record as to the date of conviction but considered that this was immaterial to the substance of the allegation. 6 The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel received a police summary report. This stated that a report had been received on 20 September 2021 from a former pupil of the Academy that she had been having a sexual relationship with her [REDACTED] teacher, Mr Harder [REDACTED]. The report summarised that the victim had said that whilst attending the Academy, she had been [REDACTED] and was referred to the safeguarding team and specifically Mr Harder. She stated that he instigated the swapping of personal email addresses and private communications started between them, with Mr Harder emailing her first. When she was 16 years old, she stated that she performed oral sex on Mr Harder [REDACTED] and had sexual intercourse with him [REDACTED] She alleged that this progressed to them having sexual intercourse on a regular basis with one another at his family home and on one occasion, at her family home. The panel was not provided with the sentencing remarks so could not see the precise matters that were referred to in each count. However, the panel noted that there was a general correlation between the description of the offences and the allegations made to the police by the former pupil. The panel found this allegation proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Harder in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Harder was in breach of the following standards:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions 7 o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including… the rule of law…and mutual respect…  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach…  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting since he engaged in a sexual relationship with a pupil both inside and outside the school environment. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of the pupil with whom he engaged in a sexual relationship. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Harder’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Harder’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel considered the offences committed by Mr Harder to be extremely serious. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Harder’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. The panel decided that the facts of the proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go