Mr Christopher Jones

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 Christopher Jones

Teacher reference number: 0412685

Teacher's date of birth: 24 May 1957

Location teacher worked: Leighton Buzzard, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 November 2025 to 14 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 Christopher Leonard Jones formerly employed in Leighton Buzzard, East of 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 Christopher Jones: 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 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 20 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Christopher Jones Teacher ref number: 0412685 Teacher date of birth: 24 May 1957 TRA reference: 18572 Date of determination: 14 November 2025 Former employer: The Cottesloe School, Leighton Buzzard Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 12 to 14 November 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Christopher Jones. The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Neil Green (lay panellist) and Mr Philip Jolowicz (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Lousia Atkins of Capsticks LLP. Mr Jones was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 4 August 2025. It was alleged that Mr Jones was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, between or around 2017 and 2019 whilst a teacher at The Cottesloe School (“the School”): 1. In respect of Pupil A, he: a) took a photograph of Pupil A in their [REDACTED] uniform without their consent; b) emailed the photograph to himself; c) displayed the photograph to his class via the smartboard in his classroom d) said to Pupil A that the “[REDACTED] uniform turned you on” or words to that effect; e) touched Pupil A’s waist. 2. In respect of Pupil B, he: a) said: i. “I’m going to have to walk in front of you so I don’t get too distracted” or words to the effect; ii. “Feel my pulse, it’s racing”, or words to that effect; b) winked at Pupil B; c) touched and/or played with Pupil B’s hair; d) touched and/or squeezed Pupil B’s waist. 3. In respect of Pupil C and/or D, he: a) said it was not cold because “you can’t see [the Pupil’s] nips” or words to that effect; b) invited Pupil C / and or D to show him their nipples. 4. In respect of Pupil D, he said that their partner was “very lucky” to be with them or used words to that effect. 5 5. In respect of Pupil E, he mimicked hitting Pupil E on the buttocks with a ruler. 6. In respect of Pupil F he: a) kissed or gestured to kiss the hand of Pupil F; b) touched the hem of Pupil F’s dress and/or Pupil F’s coat. 7. In respect of Pupil G, he referred to a) “girls with big lips and big bums” as criminals or words to that effect; b) Pupil G as having a “big bum” or words to the effect. 8. In respect of one or more pupils he: a) referred to a pupil as a ‘bomber’ or words to that effect; b) asked a pupil if their mobile phone was a bomb detonator or words to that effect. 9. During lessons on one or more occasions: a) when giving lessons on rape crime, based scenarios around female pupils in his class; b) told female pupils that you wanted to “wrestle” behind C Block on ‘results day or used words to the effect; c) stated that: i. gay marriage makes marriage vows invalid, or words to that effect; ii. homosexuals were disgusting, or words to that effect; iii. black people have destroyed London, or words to that effect; iv. bloody immigrants, or words to that effect; d) referred to girls growing breasts and pubic hair and/or boys getting excited and “rubbing their milk” on women. 10. His conduct paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 was sexually motivated. 11. His conduct at allegations 1 – 9 demonstrated a lack of insight into the concerns raised by the School’s Final Written Warning issued to him and dated 30 January 2008 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 6 to 9 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 10 to 19 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements and exhibits – pages 20 to 311 Section 4: Teacher correspondence – pages 312 The panel also consider a Notice of Referral dated 29 May 2024 – pages 313 to 325 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer:  Pupil B ([REDACTED]).  Witness 1 – [REDACTED] No witnesses were called on behalf of Mr Jones. 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 Christopher Jones had been employed as a teacher of law and criminology at The Cottesloe School (the “School”) from 2006. Mr Jones did not hold ‘qualified teacher status’ and had moved into teaching following a lengthy career in the military. Mr Jones mainly taught law and criminology to sixth form pupils and business studies to [REDACTED] pupils. He was also a form tutor [REDACTED]. On 12 March 2019, Witness 1, [REDACTED], was made aware of a concern that [REDACTED] (Pupil B) had raised about Mr Jones’ conduct towards her. Following this, 7 [REDACTED] contacted the Local Authority Designated Officer and began to investigate the concerns. Following initial investigatory steps, additional concerns about Mr Jones’ conduct towards other pupils arose and Mr Jones was suspended from teaching duties on 5 April 2019. During the progression of the School investigation, Mr Jones resigned his position on 10 June 2018. The School’s investigatory process continued. Following its conclusion, the School made a referral to the TRA on 26 July 2019, which has resulted in this hearing. The concerns raised by Pupil B and others during the School’s investigation form the basis of the allegations against Mr Jones in these TRA proceedings. The panel heard sworn evidence from Pupil B and from Witness 1. As can be seen in the allegations, many of them relate to other pupils who did not appear before the panel as witnesses. Evidence of their accounts was in the form of written statements taken from them and other staff members during the School’s investigation. As the TRA sought to rely on the content of those statements in proving these allegations, they amounted to hearsay evidence. The panel recognised that firstly, consideration needed to be given to whether these hearsay accounts could be fairly admitted into the proceedings. The panel noted that in both his responses to the School’s investigation and to the TRA’s investigation, Mr Jones generally did not appear to raise any dispute as to the essential facts contained in those statements. Where there seemed to be scope for a different position between the parties it appeared to be more focused on how those undisputed facts should be interpreted and what inferences could be drawn from them. On that basis, the panel was satisfied that the hearsay accounts of these pupils and other staff members would be sufficiently reliable in order to be fairly admitted into the proceedings. Notwithstanding its admission, the panel also carefully considered what weight, if any, should be given to these accounts on an individual basis in the below analysis, as it kept in mind the inherent limitations hearsay evidence might have. In response to the TRA allegations, Mr Jones indicated that he admitted the allegations. He had not provided substantive responses to individual allegations. However, he had indicated there was a ‘context’ to the admissions he was making. Additionally, in response to the School’s allegations, Mr Jones had not directly admitted or denied each and every aspect of the allegations put to him. On that basis, the panel did not simply accept Mr Jones’ response as a full and unequivocal admission to the allegations. His response was considered as important evidence along with the surrounding relevant evidence for each allegation. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. In respect of Pupil A, you: 8 a) took a photograph of Pupil A in their [REDACTED] uniform without their consent; b) emailed the photograph to yourself; c) displayed the photograph to your class via the smartboard in your classroom d) said to Pupil A that the “[REDACTED] uniform turned you on” or words to that effect; e) touched Pupil A’s waist. Before the panel was a statement from the School investigation dated 19 March 2019, which had been written by Pupil A. It set out that: “[Mr Jones] jokingly took a picture of me at parents evening and emailed it to himself and put it on the smartboard during form. He then proceeded to tell me that the uniform turned him on.” Pupil A had also provided a statement to the TRA in its investigation. In this statement, Pupil A set out that she had attended parents’ evening with her mother and was wearing her [REDACTED] uniform. Pupil A further stated that in response to seeing her in the uniform, Mr Jones said words to the effect of ‘I have to save this’ and took his phone out of his pocket and took a photograph of her. She described feeling uncomfortable and shocked at this happening and as a result did not react apart from laughing awkwardly. Pupil A also set out in both statements that there was an instance where Mr Jones approached her in class to use the bin and when passing her he ‘jabbed her in the waist’. Pupil A did not understand why Mr Jones had done this and he did not make any remark when he did it. In the School’s investigation report, it is noted that two other pupils interviewed had seen a photograph of Pupil A in an [REDACTED] uniform being displayed in form time. Although neither mentioned hearing the phrase ‘turned on’, one recalled a reference to him saying he was ‘glad he got it’. The report further set out that another teacher present during the parents’ evening had also seen Mr Jones take a photograph of Pupil A, but had presumed as a parent was present, that Mr Jones had obtained permission from them. Pupil A also said she had felt uncomfortable when Mr Jones had made suggestive comments in form time when he put the picture on display the following day. In the School’s investigation, Mr Jones is noted as explaining that Pupil A was often dressed in a ‘scruffy’ manner so he said to Pupil A and her mother that he needed to get a photograph for the class board. He explained that he had transferred the image to his laptop and it was on his laptop screen for a brief period of time. Whilst not directly 9 commenting on the allegation regarding making suggestive comments whilst the image was on the screen, Mr Jones explained that he and Pupil B ‘enjoyed jokey comments between us’. He further confirmed that he was aware that it was against the School’s policies for staff members to take photographs of pupils. There did not appear to be a direct response from Mr Jones in respect of allegation 1e). The panel was satisfied there was undisputed evidence that Mr Jones had taken a photograph of Pupil A in her [REDACTED] uniform and had shown this image the following day to his form, [REDACTED]. There was no attempt by Mr Jones to dispute or distance himself from the allegations regarding him making suggestive comments about the photograph or touching Pupil A on her waist in either his School response or TRA response when these allegations had been directly put to him. The panel was satisfied that sufficient weight could be placed on Pupil A’s contemporaneous account and the later TRA statement, much of which appeared to be corroborated by other accounts. Therefore, the panel was persuaded that it was more likely than not that these events occurred. The panel was also satisfied the evidence showed that Mr Jones did not seek any consent when taking the photograph. In relation to allegation 1b), the panel is required to carefully review the wording of the allegations and on the available evidence the panel could not infer from Pupil B’s account how she was able to come to the conclusion it was ‘emailed’. Mr Jones’ response simply refers to transferring the photograph across the relevant devices. Taking into account the myriad methods files can be transferred between devices, the panel was not satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that email was the method used. The reality however, of not finding this particular sub-allegation proved had little to no bearing on the rest of the allegation. Accordingly, the panel found allegation 1 and it sub-allegations proved in full apart from sub allegation 1b) which was found not proved. 2. In respect of Pupil B, you: a) said: i. “I’m going to have to walk in front of you so I don’t get too distracted” or words to that effect; ii. “Feel my pulse, it’s racing”, or words to that effect; In Pupil B’s evidence before the panel, she stated that Mr Jones had taught her at GCSEs and A Levels. She stated that on around 15 March 2019, she was wearing trousers made of a leather-like material. She said Mr Jones initially asked about her trouser material during the last lesson of the day. 10 Following the lesson, Pupil B and others walked down to the buses to leave school and Mr Jones was walking behind them. Pupil B said Mr Jones remarked that ‘it was best that he walked in front of her’. He also then put his wrist out and said ‘feel my pulse, it's racing’. Pupil B described how she felt extremely uncomfortable when he said this and did not say anything in response. In statement taken during the School’s investigation, another pupil is noted as saying: “I was walking with [Pupil B] at the end of school towards the bus bay. Mr Jones was walking directly behind us. He made a comment to [Pupil B] about her leggings and that he was getting distracted and he moved to pass in front of us. He held out his hand and asked [Pupil B] to feel how fast his pulse was racing.” In his interview during the School’s investigation, this allegation was directly put to Mr Jones and his recorded response was that he could not deny making those comments. The reason he made them was because it was a ‘jokey’ response to her wearing clothing that was not in line with the School’s policy. He went on to say it was not for any sexual purpose. On this evidence, it appeared there was essentially an agreed evidential picture as to the underlying facts set out in the sub-allegation. On that basis, the panel found this sub- allegation proved. b) winked at Pupil B; c) touched and/or played with Pupil B’s hair; d) touched and/or squeezed Pupil B’s waist. In her statement to the School, Pupil B also described how Mr Jones would, on occasion, wink at her. Pupil B added that he had squeezed her waist and played with her hair. Although the alleged facts of sub-allegations 2c) and 2d) were put directly to Mr Jones in the School’s investigation, he did not provide any response to them. The panel took into account Pupil B had given sworn evidence attesting to these events happening, which were unchallenged and Mr Jones had not denied or sought to distance himself from the allegations in the School's investigation. On that basis, the panel considered it was more likely than not the events described by Pupil B occurred. Accordingly, the panel found sub-allegations 2b) to 2d) proved. 3. In respect of Pupil C and/or D, you: a) said it was not cold because “you can’t see [the Pupil’s] nips” or words to that effect; 11 b) invited Pupil C and/or D to show you their nipples. In Pupil C’s statement to the School investigation, she explained that during a lesson she had remarked that it was cold outside and Mr Jones responded ‘that it wasn't because you could not see his nips’. Pupil C stated that the conversation continued with Mr Jones suggesting that she should show him her nipples. Pupil D made a statement in the School’s investigation that Mr Jones told her to remove her coat and she responded by saying it was ‘too cold’. Mr Jones replied to the effect that it wasn’t cold as his nipples were not erect. Pupil D did not make any reference in her statement to Mr Jones asking her or others to show their nipples. In the School’s investigation, the comments alleged by Pupil B were directly put to Mr Jones. His noted response was that he did not deny making these comments but sought to contextualise them as being a common reference made from his military days in regard to discussing cold weather. The undisputed evidential picture showed that Mr Jones was initially making reference to his nipples rather than the pupils’. It appeared to the panel that the TRA had mistakenly referred to the wrong person in sub-allegation 3a). It accordingly could not be proved on its current formulation. In light of the undisputed evidence regarding inviting Pupil C to show her nipples, the panel found sub-allegation 3b) proved in so far as it applied to Pupil C. The panel paused to consider its position in respect of not allowing allegations to fail for technical reasons and allowing an ‘under-prosecution’ to occur. In light of finding sub- allegation 3b) proved and taking the case in the round with the other findings made, the panel was satisfied that no ‘under-prosecution’ would arise by not correcting this sub- allegation with an amendment. 4. In respect of Pupil D, you said that their partner was “very lucky” to be with them or used words to that effect. In Pupil D’s statement to the School’s investigation, she referred to Mr Jones making remarks about how ‘her partner was very lucky to be with her’. Pupil D described it as making her feel awkward and uncomfortable and said that Mr Jones would also point out that she was going red when he made these comments. Although the facts of this allegation were put directly to Mr Jones in the School’s investigation, he did not provide any specific response to them. The panel noted that Pupil D’s account was hearsay evidence and there were no corroborating accounts in respect of these comments. The panel took into account that Pupil D’s account had been corroborated by others in respect of other events. 12 Furthermore, in Pupil D’s statement she appeared open and balanced in her approach to discussing events around Mr Jones. For example, having heard Mr Jones make a plainly sexualised comment (as set out in allegation 9d)), Pupil D remarked that “Mr Jones might not have meant it in a weird way”. Taking those factors into account the panel was prepared to give significant weight to this evidence. The panel was therefore persuaded that it was more likely than not that Mr Jones had made these remarks. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proved. 5. In respect of Pupil E, you mimicked hitting Pupil E on the buttocks with a ruler. In Pupil E’s statement to the School’s investigation, dated 13 March 2019, she described an event at the start of lunch when she was talking with another pupil (who’s name she could not recall) and Mr Jones was sat on a chair when he mimicked hitting her buttocks with a metre long ruler. Pupil E remarked she was only aware of this once she turned around and saw Mr Jones doing this and which made her feel uncomfortable. Although the alleged facts of this allegation were put directly to Mr Jones in the School’s investigation, he did not provide any specific response to them. The School’s investigator further notes that no corroborating account found from the other pupils. The panel took into account there was no requirement for corroboration of evidence to be present in order to find an allegation proved. However, the panel considered it noteworthy that despite being alleged to have been stared in front of others, no other pupil had referred to this in accounts to the School’s investigator and a number of pupils were interviewed. The panel also noted Pupil E’s description in not seeing the actions first of all as she was looking in another direction, which may have impacted on her potential interpretation of events. On that basis, the panel considered that it could not be satisfied that it was more likely than not that Mr Jones had mimicked such actions. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation not proved. 6. In respect of Pupil F you: a) kissed or gestured to kiss the hand of Pupil F; b) touched the hem of Pupil F’s dress and/or Pupil F’s coat. In her statement to the School's investigation dated 15 March 2019, Pupil F stated that on one occasion, just before a lesson started, she was wearing a black velvet dress and sitting in her chair in the classroom. Mr Jones came up and asked her about the fabric and proceeded to pick up the bottom hem of her dress to feel it. 13 Pupil F went on to recall that on a later occasion, she had bought Mr Jones a packet of sweets to replace a packet she had earlier taken from him and in response he kissed her hand to say thank you. Pupil F had caveated her statement with the fact that as a couple of months had passed, she was less certain in her recall of the events. Pupil F also described an occasion when Mr Jones had put his hand on the collar of her coat and she backed up against the wall, which made her feel ‘uncomfortable and a bit awkward’. In his response to the school investigation, Mr Jones is noted as admitting two aspects of these allegations. In respect of kissing Pupil F’s hand, his response was noted as: “I had been a bit grumpy with the class for taking my sweets from my desk. I was very pleased when this student bought me a replacement packet, and I recall gesturing a bow and a kiss on her hand, and thanking her very much. I don't believe I actually kissed her hand.” In regard to touching Pupil F’s dress and coat, Mr Jones is noted as saying: “[T]his student is always immaculately dressed, and I have made positive comments to her before about her clothing. I accept that it may have made the student uncomfortable when I touched her dress by lifting the hem of it up on that occasion to feel the velvety fabric, as described to me by the [investigator]. I do not recall the incident where it is claimed the student was forced to take a step back when I felt the collar of her coat.” On these essentially agreed facts the panel found the allegation proved in so far as Mr Jones gestured to kiss Pupil F’s hand and touched the hem of her dress. The panel was further satisfied that it was more likely than not that Mr Jones had also touched her coat. There was little reason to cast doubt on Pupil F’s account and Mr Jones did not seek to deny or distance himself from such conduct in his interview. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proved. 7. In respect of Pupil G, you referred to a) “girls with big lips and big bums” as criminals or words to that effect; b) Pupil G as having a “big bum” or words to that effect. In her statement to the School’s investigation dated 19 March 2019, Pupil G referred to an occasion in a law class a couple of months prior to writing the statement. She stated that Mr Jones was discussing criminal stereotypes and he referred to girls with ‘big lips and big bums as being ‘criminals’. At that time Pupil G said she was walking across the classroom back to her seat and Mr Jones said to the class that she had a ‘big bum’. Pupil 14 G recalled feeling embarrassed that the size of her body had been mentioned out loud in front of the class. In the section of her statement which asked if there were any witnesses to the incident, Pupil G had responded “the whole class”. In his response to the schools investigation, Mr Jones stated that he did not recall making such remarks. The panel took into account there was no requirement for corroboration of evidence to be present in order to find an allegation proved. However, the panel considered it noteworthy that despite being alleged to have been stated in front of the whole class, no other pupil had referred to this in their accounts to the School’s investigator and a number of pupils had been interviewed. On that basis, the panel considered that it could not be satisfied that it was more likely than not that Mr Jones had made these remarks. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation not proved. 8. In respect of one or more pupils you: a) referred to a pupil as a ‘bomber’ or words to that effect; b) asked a pupil if their mobile phone was a bomb detonator or words to that effect. A number of pupils, in their accounts to the School’s investigation, recalled Mr Jones referring to a particular pupil as a ‘bomber’, which they understood was on account of her being Asian. In Pupil B’s sworn evidence to the panel, she stated: “I also had a girl in my class who wore a hijab. She had an old fashioned Nokia phone. The Teacher would say that her Nokia phone was her detonator and he called her the bomb thrower a couple of times. On one occasion, I do not recall when, the student got her phone out and Mr Jones began to flinch and said 'don't do it, don't do it' or words to that effect.” In his response to the School’s investigation, Mr Jones stated that he did not recall making such remarks. In light of weight the panel gave to Pupil B’s sworn evidence, its high degree of corroboration and the fact that Mr Jones in no way sought to deny or distance himself from such remarks made in class, the panel was satisfied it was more likely than not that he made these comments. 15 Accordingly, the panel found to this allegation proved. 9. During lessons on one or more occasions: a) when giving lessons on rape crime, based scenarios around female pupils in your class; A number of pupils made reference in their School investigation statements to Mr Jones using female pupils’ names as victims in examples of rape crimes in the discussions of rape scenarios. In his response for the School’s investigation, Mr Jones is noted as replying: “I do accept that I should have used anonymous examples when teaching about crime cases such as rape. I accept that involving the use of individual students’ names may have made students feel uncomfortable.” On this undisputed evidential picture, the panel found his sub-allegation proved. b) told female pupils that you wanted to “wrestle” behind C Block on ‘results day or used words to that effect; In her statement for the TRA’s investigation, Pupil A described how Mr Jones had said to her that if she didn’t receive a certain high grade in her A Level results, he would take her behind one of the teaching blocks and ‘wrestle’ with her. In his response to the School’s investigation, Mr Jones is noted as replying: “I felt there was a good relationship between myself and [Pupil A] and her mother. [Pupil A] and I enjoyed jokey comments between us. She would say to me “I'll slap you”, which is why my response about wrestling her was made, in a jokey way. I wouldn't do anything to harm [Pupil A].” On this undisputed evidential picture, the panel found his sub-allegation proved. c) stated that: i. gay marriage makes marriage vows invalid, or words to that effect; ii. homosexuals were disgusting, or words to that effect; Numerous pupils made reference in their statements to the School’s investigation to Mr Jones making disparaging remarks about people who were homosexual during his lessons. In his response for the School’s investigation, Mr Jones is noted as replying: 16 “I don't hold with homosexuality, and accept that my personal views may have been shared with my students.” On this essentially undisputed evidential picture, the panel found this sub-allegation proved. iii. black people have destroyed London, or words to that effect; iv. bloody immigrants, or words to that effect; In Pupil MM’s statement to the School’s investigation dated 1 May 2019, there was a single line reference to Mr Jones making these alleged remarks. Whilst there is reference in a number of pupils’ statements to Mr Jones making openly racist comments in general terms, no other pupil refers to these highly specific remarks. Mr Jones denied making these specific remarks in his School investigation interview. The panel considered that a single line entry in a hearsay statement was not sufficiently cogent evidence on which a finding on the balance of probabilities could reasonably be made in the absence of any further supporting evidence. Accordingly, the panel found these sub-allegations not proved. d) referred to girls growing breasts and pubic hair and/or boys getting excited and “rubbing their milk” on women. Pupil D said in her School investigation statement that Mr Jones made this remark in her presence. The panel has previously commented on its assessment of Pupil D’s hearsay account above. In his response to the School’s investigation, Mr Jones said he did not recall making such comments. The panel noted that Mr Jones did not deny or seek to distance himself from making such remarks. Furthermore, the panel did not find it a credible explanation that a teacher would not be able to remember using such specific language in front of pupils. On that basis, the panel was satisfied that it was more likely than not that Mr Jones made these remarks. Accordingly, the panel found this sub allegation proved. 10. Your conduct paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 was sexually motivated. The panel took into account the legal test of sexually motivated conduct was conduct undertaken in pursuit of either:  sexual gratification, or 17  a future sexual relationship. Furthermore, the panel took into account that a finding that the conduct was inappropriate should not automatically result in a finding of sexual motivation and other credible alternative explanations had to be considered. In regard to allegation 1, the panel noted the reference to sexually suggestive remarks and touching a pupil may indicate that Mr Jones’ conduct was sexually motivated in accordance with the above legal test. However, taking Mr Jones' conduct in the round at allegation 1, the panel was not satisfied it was more likely than not that the conduct was undertaken in pursuit of a future sexual relationship with Pupil A, or done in pursuit of his own sexual gratification. The panel considered there was a real possibility, which could not be discounted, that Mr Jones’ conduct with Pupil A, was more in nature of his misguided attempts at engaging in ‘banter-like’ behaviour with pupils and behaviour which was intended to exploit the power dynamic he held over them. Such behaviour was demonstrated in much of his conduct towards pupils. Furthermore, the panel noted that the touching of Pupil A’s waist had been described in the fashion of a ‘jabbing’ motion. The panel considered that touching of this nature was not indicative of a sexual motivation, albeit it could still properly be described as deeply inappropriate. In regard to allegation 2, whilst it shared some similarities with the conduct at allegation 1, the panel considered there were some differences which it considered did cross the evidential threshold on the balance of probabilities. In particular, taking account of Mr Jones’ description of his own physical reaction and his direct invitation to Pupil B to physically touch him, the panel considered it was more likely than not that Mr Jones’ conduct on this occasion was in pursuit of sexual gratification. The panel considered there was no evidence to suggest it was in pursuit of a future sexual relationship with Pupil B. In regard to allegation 3, the panel considered the conduct by Mr Jones on this occasion shared a distinct similarity with that at allegation 1. The panel considered these were inappropriate comments made in front of the entire class and made in an inappropriately ‘joking’ manner, rather than in any real motivation for his own sexual gratification (or pursuit of a future sexual relationship). Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proved, but only insofar as it applied to allegation 2 on the basis of being in pursuit of sexual gratification. 11. Your conduct at allegations 1 – 9 demonstrated a lack of insight into the concerns raised by the School’s Final Written Warning issued to you and dated 30 January 2008. 18 Before the panel was a copy of the warning given to Mr Jones on 30 January 2008. The letter set out that the warning was given in response to the following allegations: “(a) Inappropriate comments of a sexual nature to a [REDACTED] female student during a recent lesson. (b) Inappropriate comments of a sexual, racist or homophobic nature to classes over a prolonged period.” This was plainly conduct that shared a close similarity with the conduct found proven in the above allegations. Despite the clear terms of the warning, Mr Jones had repeated the conduct. It appeared that Mr Jones was able to demonstrate some insight during the 2008 process. The letter records: “To your credit, you accepted unreservedly the inappropriateness of your comments. The only circumstance which gives any grounds for mitigation would be that you came to speak in this over-familiar and unprofessional manner because of a mistaken belief that it would enhance your credibility and success as a teacher. In the absence of evidence which would lead to an alternative explanation of your behaviour, I have decided to put this construction on it. In fact, it breached guidelines of professional behaviour, compromised colleagues, discomforted students, and lowered their respect for you.” Despite a period of time passing, the repetition of such similar conduct was suggestive that Mr Jones had not developed any meaningful insight, particularly in relation to its negative effect on pupils. During the intervening time, there was no evidence before the panel of repeat behaviour. However, at the time of the new allegations, the evidence appeared to show that a number of pupils were aware of behaviours similar to those described in the 2008 warning letter. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number 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”. 19 The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Jones, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Jones 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 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… In taking the allegations on an individual basis, the panel considered that the conduct in allegations 4 and 6 would amount to breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. However, the panel recognised that breaches of the standards should not automatically result in a finding of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel considered that the level of misconduct exemplified in those two allegations, although inappropriate and misconduct to some degree, were not at a sufficiently serious level to cross the high threshold into unacceptable professional conduct. In respect of the remaining proven allegations, the panel considered they were sufficiently serious to cross the threshold. They could not reasonably be considered as inconsequential or momentary lapses. These were not minor breaches of the standards. There was a sustained course of conduct by Mr Jones and there was evidence that this made pupils feel deeply uncomfortable. Many pupils did not feel safe attending his lessons and some even took steps to avoid attending lessons. The panel also considered whether Mr Jones’ 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 none of these offences was relevant. In balancing these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Jones amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. In relation to whether Mr Jones’ 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 20 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. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Jones was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the panel found that none of the offences set out in the Advice were relevant. Similarly, the panel also considered that allegations 4 and 6 would not be considered serious enough to call the profession into disrepute. The findings of misconduct for the remaining allegations are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. Mr Jones’ repeated actions fell far short of behaviour expected of a teacher. The panel had no doubt that the public would lose significant trust in the profession if the conduct displayed by Mr Jones was not met with a proportionate regulatory response in these circumstances. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Jones’ actions also constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and 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.  declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Jones, which involved a series of inappropriate, discriminatory and sexualised behaviours toward pupils, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of 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 Jones were not treated with 21 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 Jones was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 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 Jones. 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;  sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature…  violation of the rights of pupils;  a deep-seated attitude that leads to harmful behaviour; 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. The panel considered the list of factors at paragraph 43 of the Advice. The panel’s view was that none of those listed factors applied in this case. Mr Jones’ actions were deliberate. There was no character or professional references before the panel to consider. [REDACTED], who had worked with Mr Jones for a period of around two years described Mr Jones as making a positive contribution to his department in general terms. However, there was no evidence available to the panel to suggest that Mr Jones had made an exceptional contribution. The panel did note that Mr Jones was not subject to any previous regulatory action and although not present at this hearing, had to some degree engaged with the regulatory process in his correspondence with the TRA. Of particular concern to the panel was the repetitive nature of Mr Jones inappropriate conduct. In 2007, Mr Jones had written the following reflection following his conduct being called into question: “The lessons I have already learnt from this incident: • I shall endeavour to be much more selective in my use of language in future; 22 • The need to stick with first intuitions; • I shall be extremely guarded not to open myself up to these sort of accusations again; • How vulnerable proactive risk-taking teachers are in their everyday actions” Despite this, further formal school action was required with a written warning in 2008 and again his inappropriate conduct continued with these allegations. As part of his response in the 2019 investigation Mr Jones is noted as saying: “I describe myself as being outward, loud, bubbly, gregarious. I am me and am not going to change.” As noted in allegation 11, there was a distinct lack of insight when these further concerns arose. The panel saw no evidence that there has been any change or development of his insight following these events. Accordingly, in the absence of developed insight and any evidence of effective and proven remedial steps being taken, the panel considered the risk of repetition of similar misconduct occurring was at a high level. 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 Jones 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 Jones. The fact that the current risk to pupils posed by Mr Jones and the likely harm that might result from further misconduct were restrictive regulatory action not taken were significant factors 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 23 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. One of these include “any sexual misconduct involving a child”. 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. One of these include “intolerance and/or hatred on the grounds of race, religion, sexual orientation or protected characteristics”. In assessing these factors, the panel took into account that when considering the specific misconduct relating to these factors, they could fairly be considered as being at the lower end of the possible spectrum of serious misconduct. For example, the sexual misconduct was of limited duration and related to what Mr Jones had said to the pupil. The panel considered that as a matter of proportionality, it would be open to consider a lesser time frame in regard to a potential review period, which did not comprise the achievement of the wider public interest factors. The panel therefore decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review after a period of two years. Should any application for review be made, any future panel should expect to be furnished with compelling evidence of a developed and sophisticated insight on the part of Mr Jones, bearing in mind the current high risk of repetition. 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 some 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. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven, and/or found that some allegations do not amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. 24 The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Christopher Jones should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Jones 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 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 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… The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Jones fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher exhibiting inappropriate, discriminatory and sexualised behaviours toward pupils. 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 Jones, 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 makes this observation: “In respect of the remaining proven allegations, the panel considered they were sufficiently serious to cross the threshold. They could not reasonably be considered as inconsequential or momentary lapses. These were not minor breaches of the standards. There was a sustained course of conduct by Mr Jones and there was evidence that this made pupils feel deeply uncomfortable. Many pupils did not feel safe attending his lessons and some even took steps to avoid attending lessons.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. 25 I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which the panel set out as follows: “Of particular concern to the panel was the repetitive nature of Mr Jones inappropriate conduct. In 2007, Mr Jones had written the following reflection following his conduct being called into question: “The lessons I have already learnt from this incident: • I shall endeavour to be much more selective in my use of language in future; • The need to stick with first intuitions; • I shall be extremely guarded not to open myself up to these sort of accusations again; • How vulnerable proactive risk-taking teachers are in their everyday actions” Despite this, further formal school action was required with a written warning in 2008 and again his inappropriate conduct continued with these allegations. As part of his response in the 2019 investigation Mr Jones is noted as saying: “I describe myself as being outward, loud, bubbly, gregarious. I am me and am not going to change.” As noted in allegation 11, there was a distinct lack of insight when these further concerns arose. The panel saw no evidence that there has been any change or development of his insight following these events. Accordingly, in the absence of developed insight and any evidence of effective and proven remedial steps being taken, the panel considered the risk of repetition of similar misconduct occurring was at a high level.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Jones has developed full insight and remorse means that I agree with the panel 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 findings of misconduct for the remaining allegations are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. Mr Jones’ repeated actions fell far short of behaviour expected of a teacher. The panel had no doubt that the public would lose significant trust in the profession if the conduct displayed by Mr Jones was not met with a proportionate regulatory response in these circumstances.” 26 I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher behaving in a highly inappropriate and sexualised manner towards pupils in this case and the 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 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 Jones himself. The panel provides these comments: “There was no character or professional references before the panel to consider. [REDACTED], who had worked with Mr Jones for a period of around two years described Mr Jones as making a positive contribution to his department in general terms. However, there was no evidence available to the panel to suggest that Mr Jones had made an exceptional contribution. The panel did note that Mr Jones was not subject to any previous regulatory action and although not present at this hearing, had to some degree engaged with the regulatory process in his correspondence with the TRA.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Jones 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 serious nature of the misconduct found as well as the lack of evidence of insight and remorse. I also note that Mr Jones had previously received guidance as to his conduct. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Jones 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, that is not backed up by full remorse and insight, 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. 27 I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a two-year review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “In assessing these factors, the panel took into account that when considering the specific misconduct relating to these factors, they could fairly be considered as being at the lower end of the possible spectrum of serious misconduct. For example, the sexual misconduct was of limited duration and related to what Mr Jones had said to the pupil. The panel considered that as a matter of proportionality, it would be open to consider a lesser time frame in regard to a potential review period, which did not comprise the achievement of the wider public interest factors. The panel therefore decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review after a period of two years. Should any application for review be made, any future panel should expect to be furnished with compelling evidence of a developed and sophisticated insight on the part of Mr Jones, bearing in mind the current high risk of repetition.” I have considered whether a two-year review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing such a review period is sufficient and proportionate to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the serious nature of the misconduct found, which included discriminatory and sexualised behaviour towards pupils, as well as the lack of evidence of either insight or remorse and the consequent high risk of repetition identified by the panel. I consider therefore that a two-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mr Christopher Jones is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 24 November 2027, two years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Jones remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. 28 Mr Jones 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: 18 November 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.