Mr Benjamin Lillicrap

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 Benjamin Lillicrap

Teacher reference number: 0760930

Teacher's date of birth: 24 May 1985

Location teacher worked: Kent, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 March 2026

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 Benjamin Lillicrap formerly employed in Kent, South 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.

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Benjamin Lillicrap: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Benjamin Lillicrap Teacher ref number: 0760930 Teacher date of birth: 24 May 1985 TRA reference: 23350 D ate of determination: 30 March 2026 For mer employer: The Abbey School, Kent Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 30 March 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Benjamin Lillicrap. The panel members were Mrs Bernie Whittle (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Ashley Emmerson (teacher panellist) and Ms Cathryn Tillman (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Surbhi Shah of Birketts LLP solicitors. I n advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Lillicrap that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Lillicrap provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Mr Jordan Wilford of Browne Jacobson, Mr Lillicrap, or any representative for Mr Lillicrap. The meeting took place in private. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 12 January 2026. It was alleged that Mr Lillicrap was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at The Abbey School in Kent (“the School”) between July 2023 and February 2024: 1. He engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour in that he took one or more images of his genitalia on school premises; and 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of Proceedings and response – pages 5 to 15 Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and PO submissions – pages 17 to 22 Section 3: Witness statements – pages 24 to 47 Section 4: Documents – pages 49 to 213 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 Lillicrap on 2 November 2025 and signed by the presenting officer on 2 October 2025. 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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 Lillicrap for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be 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. On 20 July 2023, Mr Benjamin Lillicrap commenced employment as a teacher of science at the School. In November 2023, during a police investigation into an unrelated matter, officers discovered multiple indecent images of Mr Lillicrap’s genitalia that had been taken on the School premises during school hours. On 20 November 2023 Mr Lillicrap did not attend work. The School had been notified that Mr Lillicrap [REDACTED]. On 21 November 2023, the School (by telephone) suspended Mr Lillicrap pending the police investigation. The School also contacted the LADO for safeguarding advice. On 22 November 2023, the LADO informed the School that police had confirmed the discovery of indecent images taken on the School site, as well as historic indecent images taken at previous schools. The LADO advised the School to proceed with a disciplinary investigation without delay. On 11 December 2023, the School held an investigation meeting with Mr Lillicrap. During this meeting, Mr Lillicrap admitted that he had taken indecent images of his genitalia on school premises during the school day and stated that the images were intended for [REDACTED]. Mr Lillicrap stated that no students had been present when he had taken the images. On 9 February 2024, the School issued to Mr Lillicrap a formal invitation to a disciplinary hearing relating to allegations of gross misconduct arising from the taking of indecent images on school premises. On 27 February 2024, Mr Lillicrap was summarily dismissed for gross misconduct. The matter was referred to the TRA on 7 March 2024. The CPS informed the police that no criminal charges would be authorised, and the police investigation concluded with no further action. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour in that you took one or more images of your genitalia on school premises The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Lillicrap on 2 November 2025. In this statement of agreed facts, Mr Lillicrap admitted allegation 1 and further admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to unprofessional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. The panel considered the written statement of Individual A dated 30 April 2025. Individual A stated that Mr Lillicrap’s phone had been seized and later reviewed. Individual A stated that his [REDACTED], on scrolling through Mr Lillicrap’s phone, ‘found loads of images of him taking what are commonly called “dick pics” that he had sent his [REDACTED]. The panel noted the comment from Individual A in his statement about the location of the pictures as the images ‘had been taken with brick buildings in the background which looked like the location of a school’. Individual A stated that he and his [REDACTED] then went into the location settings of a picture to see where the picture was taken. In doing this they found that the location was in the School where Mr Lillicrap worked and noted that the time the picture was taken was during school hours. Individual A stated that he specifically remembered two pictures, one being in the office and one in the School grounds but would say there were upwards of five or six. The panel considered [REDACTED], meeting notes of his meeting with Mr Lillicrap dated 11 December 2023. When asked whether the LADO was correct that there was inappropriate imagery of himself on his phone, in the School grounds time-stamped during the school day, Mr Lillicrap initially stated that he could not remember. It is recorded that Mr Lillicrap when asked directly, “Have you taken any pictures of your penis during school time?” stated that he had. Mr Lillicrap stated that any such photos were only shared with [REDACTED]. He also stated that no children were in the room when he took the photos, and that he would not have registered the time as he would have been in a conversation with [REDACTED]. Mr Lillicrap apologised for taking the photos on School grounds but said that they were for [REDACTED] and stated ‘It was never anything that was meant to come to light’. 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel considered the written statement of [REDACTED] dated 29 April 2025. [REDACTED] stated that, further to Mr Lillicrap not attending work, subsequent information came from the LADO regarding images found on Mr Lillicrap’s phone. [REDACTED] stated that although the LADO only mentioned images, he inferred that these were inappropriate, as the LADO stated that the discovery of these images was the reason for the suspension remaining in place. [REDACTED] stated that he, Mr Lillicrap and [REDACTED], met at the Faversham Centre on 11 December 2023 to check on Mr Lillicrap’s wellbeing, to clarify details of and review his suspension, and to ask questions about the images on Mr Lillicrap’s phone. [REDACTED] stated that when Mr Lillicrap was asked if he had taken pictures of his genitalia, Mr Lillicrap stated “he had taken such images of himself”. Mr Lillicrap also stated he shared pictures of himself with [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] stated that he and [REDACTED] asked whether students were present when he took the pictures and Mr Lillicrap responded that there were no students present. After examining the documents before the panel and the admissions in the signed statement of agreed facts, the panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Lillicrap had taken one or more images of his genitalia on School premises. The panel considered that this was both inappropriate and unprofessional behaviour. Given its findings, the panel found allegation 1 proven. 2. Your behaviour as may be found proven at 2 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Lillicrap on 2 November 2025. In this statement of agreed facts, Mr Lillicrap admitted allegation 2 and further admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to unprofessional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. The panel first considered whether the conduct in 1 above, as found proven, was conduct of a sexual nature. The panel’s attention was drawn to section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The panel considered the definition of what conduct is or is not to be regarded as ‘sexual’. The panel noted the definition of ‘sexual’ in section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which states: “penetration, touching or any other activity is sexual if a reasonable person would consider that (a) whatever its circumstances or any person's purpose in relation to it, it is because of its nature sexual, or (b) because of its nature it may be sexual and because of its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it (or both) it is sexual.” 8 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Lillicrap took images of his genitalia on school premises during the school day and shared them with [REDACTED]. The panel found that any reasonable person would consider these actions to be of a sexual nature. The panel concluded that Mr Lillicrap’s conduct at allegation 1 was conduct of a sexual nature, as taking images of his genitalia on School premises was, by its very nature, sexual. The panel then went on to consider whether Mr Lillicrap’s conduct was sexually motivated. It noted guidance from Basson v General Medical Council [2018] that: “A sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship.” The panel further noted that in General Medical Council v Haris [2021], the Judge provided that: “In the absence of a plausible innocent explanation for what he did, the facts spoke for themselves. A sexual motive was plainly more likely than not; I would go so far as to say that that inference was overwhelming.” The panel considered whether there was a plausible innocent explanation for the conduct as found proven at allegation 1. The panel found no plausible innocent explanation for the conduct. The panel noted Mr Lillicrap’s evidence, that he had taken the pictures for [REDACTED]. They also noted that Mr Lillicrap admitted that this was done in pursuit of sexual gratification, and that he accepted he was sexually motivated when he engaged in this conduct. The panel concluded that Mr Lillicrap, when taking images of his genitalia on School premises and sharing these with [REDACTED] was wrongly focused on his own sexual gratification rather than on his teaching responsibilities. The panel concluded that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Lillicrap’s conduct as found proven at allegation 1, was both of a sexual nature and sexually motivated. Given this, and its findings in respect of allegation 1, the panel found allegation 2 proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. 9 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Lillicrap, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Lillicrap 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; and o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel found that Mr Lillicrap’s behaviour showed no regard to safeguarding of students, or the potential risk of students, colleagues and / or members of the public finding him taking images of his genitalia when on School premises. The panel found that this was not an appropriate way for a teacher to behave and he failed to observe the boundaries appropriate to his role as a teacher. The panel also noted that student have the right to be educated in a safe environment and that teachers have a duty of care to ensure that this is the case. By behaving in this way Mr Lillicrap did not provide a safe environment for the students. The panel also considered the School’s code of conduct paragraph 4.3 which states that ‘Personal property of a sexually explicit nature such as books, magazines, DVDs or such material on any electronic media must not be brought onto the Academies premises or stored on Academy equipment’. Mr Lillicrap had sexually explicit images on his personal phone which was in his possession the School premises during the school day. The panel considered this to be a clear breach of the School’s code of conduct. The panel also considered that Mr Lillicrap taking images of his genitalia when on School premises, was also a breach of the requirements set out in KCSIE page 6 paragraph 2 which states that ‘Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play. In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all practitioners should make sure their approach is child centred. This means that they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child’. 10 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Further, the panel noted that KCSIE at paragraph 7 states that ‘All staff have a responsibility to provide a safe environment in which children can learn’. In seeking his own sexual gratification on School premises and during the School day, as found proved above, Mr Lillicrap did not consider the best interests of the students, nor did he provide a safe environment in which students could learn. The panel also considered whether Mr Lillicrap’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offence of sexual activity was relevant. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Lillicrap amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Lillicrap was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Lillicrap’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel concluded that, by behaving in a manner that is sexually motivated with the aim of sexual gratification, Mr Lillicrap’s behaviour fell significantly short of behaviour which is expected of a teacher. The panel found that this would significantly damage the public’s perception of teachers who it noted should act as role models in the way they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Lillicrap’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above, in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Lillicrap was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence type of sexual activity was relevant. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Lillicrap’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 11 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Lillicrap, which involved taking images of his genitalia on the School premises during the school day, there was a strong public interest consideration in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Lillicrap were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Lillicrap was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Lillicrap in the profession. Whilst there was evidence that Mr Lillicrap was a good teacher, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Lillicrap in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and he sought to exploit his position of trust. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Lillicrap. 12 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; and • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was no evidence that Mr Lillicrap’s actions were not deliberate. There was no evidence that Mr Lillicrap was acting under extreme duress. The panel did not have evidence that Mr Lillicrap had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel did not accept that the incident was out of character. The LADO investigation report signed 3 January 2024 stated that there were similar pictures found on Mr Lillicrap’s mobile phone taken at his previous schools. The panel considered that there was a risk of Mr Lillicrap repeating the behaviour. The panel considered the evidence of insight and remorse contained in the written statement of [REDACTED] dated 29 April 2025. [REDACTED] stated that he came away feeling that Mr Lillicrap “was a [REDACTED]” and that he was [REDACTED]. He recorded that Mr Lillicrap said he was looking at leaving the teaching profession, and that he expressed regret for his actions. The panel further considered the evidence contained in the police account provided by Individual A. He found pictures on Mr Lillicrap’s phone of Mr Lillicrap in the bathroom, stating that Mr Lillicrap had [REDACTED]. The panel also considered the information recorded in the investigation report that Mr Lillicrap apologised for taking the photos on the School grounds, and his statement that he was not a danger to children. The panel further noted Mr Lillicrap’s statement that he understood the seriousness of the situation and that it could end his teaching career. 13 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel further considered the LADO investigation report 2024 which noted that ‘Mr Lillicrap had a [REDACTED], which started again when he worked at Holcombe School, that Mr Lillicrap apologised for taking the photos on the School grounds but stated he was not a danger to children and that he understood the seriousness of the situation and that it could end his teaching career’. The panel noted that as no [REDACTED] had been provided regarding Mr Lillicrap’s [REDACTED] it was unable to take a view on whether Mr Lillicrap’s [REDACTED] was a mitigating factor. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Lillicrap of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Lillicrap. The panel were of the view that whilst no student was affected, Mr Liliicrap’s actions in taking pictures of his genitalia on School premises could have exposed students to a safeguarding risk which was a significant factor 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. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons. 14 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The panel formed a view that the conduct which had been found proven was at the more serious end of the potential spectrum. The panel noted that although there was no evidence before it to suggest that this conduct occurred with students present, the taking of images of his own genitalia on the School premises during the school day represented extremely serious misconduct. The panel considered that as a teacher, Mr Lillicrap was in a position of trust and responsibility, and that taking such images on School grounds during School hours was wholly incompatible with the standards expected of a teacher. The panel considered whether the public interest would allow for a review period. In doing so, it noted the seriousness of the conduct, the risks associated with such behaviour occurring within a School environment again, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the teaching profession. The panel concluded that the public interest weighed heavily against allowing a review period. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Benjamin Lillicrap should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Lillicrap is 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 15 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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; and o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Lillicrap involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Lillicrap fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher taking images of his genitals on school premises during the school day. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Lillicrap, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel offers this observation: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Lillicrap, which involved taking images of his genitalia on the School premises during the school day, there was a strong public interest consideration in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils.” 16 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel considered the evidence of insight and remorse contained in the written statement of [REDACTED] dated 29 April 2025. [REDACTED] stated that he came away feeling that Mr Lillicrap “was a [REDACTED]” and that he was [REDACTED]. He recorded that Mr Lillicrap said he was looking at leaving the teaching profession, and that he expressed regret for his actions.” The panel also comments: “The panel also considered the information recorded in the investigation report that Mr Lillicrap apologised for taking the photos on the School grounds, and his statement that he was not a danger to children. The panel further noted Mr Lillicrap’s statement that he understood the seriousness of the situation and that it could end his teaching career.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Lillicrap has taken steps to develop full insight into his actions means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel makes this observation: “The panel concluded that, by behaving in a manner that is sexually motivated with the aim of sexual gratification, Mr Lillicrap’s behaviour fell significantly short of behaviour which is expected of a teacher. The panel found that this would significantly damage the public’s perception of teachers who it noted should act as role models in the way they behave.” I am particularly mindful of the finding in this case of a teacher taking images of his genitals on school premises and the very negative impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a 17 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Lillicrap himself. The panel comments as follows: “The panel did not have evidence that Mr Lillicrap had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel did not accept that the incident was out of character.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Lillicrap from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the seriousness of the misconduct found by the panel: “The panel formed a view that the conduct which had been found proven was at the more serious end of the potential spectrum. The panel noted that although there was no evidence before it to suggest that this conduct occurred with students present, the taking of images of his own genitalia on the School premises during the school day represented extremely serious misconduct. The panel considered that as a teacher, Mr Lillicrap was in a position of trust and responsibility, and that taking such images on School grounds during School hours was wholly incompatible with the standards expected of a teacher.” I have also placed considerable weight on the panel’s findings indicating both that this was part of a pattern of behaviour and that there is a risk of repetition: “The LADO investigation report signed 3 January 2024 stated that there were similar pictures found on Mr Lillicrap’s mobile phone taken at his previous schools. The panel considered that there was a risk of Mr Lillicrap repeating the behaviour.” I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Lillicrap has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. 18 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. In doing so, the panel has referred to the Advice as follows: “The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings.” I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “The panel considered whether the public interest would allow for a review period. In doing so, it noted the seriousness of the conduct, the risks associated with such behaviour occurring within a School environment again, and the importance of maintaining public confidence in the teaching profession. The panel concluded that the public interest weighed heavily against allowing a review period. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate response to the misconduct found in this case to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious and sexually-motivated misconduct found by the panel, the potential injury done to the reputation of the profession, and the risk of repetition and future harm to pupils. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Benjamin Lillicrap is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or 19 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Lillicrap shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Lillicrap has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 31 March 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.