Mr Daniel Reynolds

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 Daniel Reynolds

Teacher reference number: 1160702

Teacher's date of birth: 21 June 1987

Location teacher worked: Norwich, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 28 August 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 Daniel Reynolds, formerly employed in Norwich, 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 Daniel Reynolds: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Daniel Reynolds Teacher ref number: 1160702 Teacher date of birth: 21 June 1987 TRA reference: 0021532 Date of determination: 28 August 2025 Former employer: West Earlham Junior School, Norwich Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 28 August 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Daniel Reynolds. The panel members were Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist) and Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Helen Kitchen of Blake Morgan Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Daniel Reynolds that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Daniel Reynolds provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ms Emma Dowd of Capsticks, Solicitors LLP or Mr Daniel Reynolds (who had instructed no representative to act on his behalf). The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of meeting dated 23 May 2025. It was alleged that Mr Daniel Reynolds was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that he: 1. On or around 23 November 2023 was convicted in Norfolk Magistrates’ Court of three counts of making/supplying articles for use in a fraud. Mr Reynolds admitted the facts of allegation 1. Mr Reynolds also admitted and accepted that the offence was • a relevant offence for the purposes of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, • was contrary to the personal and professional conduct expected of a teacher, with reference to the Teachers’ Standards, • was relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting in so far that the conviction related to holiday camps he ran for children at the School; and • would be likely to affect the public confidence in the teaching profession if he were allowed to continue to teach. 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 and list of key people – pages 1 to 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings, response and Notice of meeting – pages 6 to 25 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and Presenting Officer representations – pages 26 to 30 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 31 to 47 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 48 to 59 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 5 In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Reynolds on 20 March 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Reynolds for the allegation 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. In 2021 Mr Reynolds was Assistant Headteacher at West Earlham Junior School (the School). He had worked at the School from around 2018 and had responsibility for safeguarding. In Summer 2021, Christmas 2021 and Easter 2022 holiday activity camps took place at the School for which funding applications and arrangements were completed by Mr Reynolds in his role as Assistant Headteacher. In April 2022 the Norfolk County Council’s (“the Council”) Education Finance Team raised concerns about apparently irregular transactions in the School’s accounts. An audit was undertaken which raised concerns about alleged dishonest actions undertaken by Mr Reynolds in respect of financial issues associated with the operation of the holiday activity camps. In June 2022 Mr Reynolds was suspended. In October 2022 Mr Reynolds’ employment at the School came to an end. In February 2023 a referral was made to the TRA In November 2023 Mr Reynolds was convicted of three counts of fraud, making supplying/supplying articles for use in a fraud relating to the operation of the holiday activity camps. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 24 November 2023 you were convicted in Norfolk Magistrates’ Court of three counts of fraud making/supplying articles for use in a fraud. The allegation was admitted by Mr Reynolds. The panel had before it a statement of agreed facts in which Mr Reynolds admitted the offences in the allegation and that they related to the holiday activity camps he ran for children at the School. The panel also had before it a certificate of conviction from Norwich Crown Court, which recorded Mr Reynolds’ conviction of the offences specified in the allegation on 24 November 2023, and the judges’ sentencing remarks from Mr Reynolds’ sentencing hearing on 1 February 2024. At that hearing he was sentenced to a total of 10 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months, 300 hours of unpaid work and 10 days rehabilitation activity requirement. Three holiday activity camps took place at the School and were managed by Mr Reynolds in the Summer of 2021, Christmas of 2021 and Easter of 2022 (the Camps). The Camps were held under a government funded programme administered locally by the Council in partnership with schools and third party providers. Mr Reynolds completed the funding application and arrangements for the Camps. In April 2022 the Council’s Education Finance Team raised concerns about transactions paid from the School’s accounts that appeared to be irregular. These related primarily to payments to staff working at the Camps. Norfolk Audit Service were instructed to undertake a fact-finding investigation to review the management and arrangements relating to the Camps. Their initial audit concluded that Mr Reynolds may have acted dishonestly by submitting false/misleading claims for payment. The findings of the audit included: • Misleading the Head Teacher as to the status of the Camps i.e. maintaining that they were being independently operated by Mr Reynolds when in a personal capacity as opposed to being surreptitiously run under the auspices of the School. 7 • Providing false statement/s on (at least) 4 February 2022 when requesting payment from the School of purported expenses incurred in the course of his operation of the Camps. • Misleading an employee of the Council regarding expenses incurred in the course of operating the Camps (namely meals for children) in the furtherance of obtaining payment under false pretences. • Providing false/fabricated documents to the School and the Council whilst under investigation purporting to evidence expenses that had been claimed by Mr Reynolds under false pretences. • Misappropriating/selling property obtained in relation to the operation of the Camps that rightly constituted School property. In February 2024 at Mr Reynolds’ sentencing hearing, following his conviction of the offences the previous November, the judge commented that Mr Reynolds had honestly and successfully run holiday activity camps in the Summer of 2020 but that when he came to run the camps again in 2021 he: “saw a gap in the accounting procedure which he dishonestly exploited to fund his [REDACTED]… The details of the fraud, sustained over a number of months to the detriment in the first instance of the County Council, but ultimately of course all taxpayers in the sense contributed to those funds ..[he] had purloined, and ..[he] ..submitted false invoices to support [his] ..fraud and delay detection”. As an example of Mr Reynolds’ actions the sentencing judge described his invoicing the School for the provision of a Christmas event despite a local hotel having provided the food free of charge as a charitable donation. He described the false invoices as “utterly bogus”. Like the sentencing judge, the panel considered that Mr Reynolds’ actions were an “egregious breach of trust reposed in ..[him] by the School” and “an abuse of a position of trust and responsibility”. The panel noted that the sentencing judge described Mr Reynolds’ culpability as “high” and stated that his actions in perpetrating the fraud had “a measure of sophistication and planning over time and [were] .. sustained over a number of months and [included the use of] bogus invoices”. The panel also noted that the sentencing judge referred to the loss that the Crown could prove being in the sum of £8,520 over a period of several months in 2021. The panel found the allegation proven on the basis of the certificate of conviction, the judge’s sentencing remarks, the written admissions made by Mr Reynolds in the 8 statement of agreed facts and the other documentary evidence before the panel which was consistent with Mr Reynolds’ admissions. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Reynolds, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel noted that in the statement of agreed facts Mr Reynolds accepted that in his Assistant Headteacher role he had interaction with pupils during physical education, break times and assemblies. He was responsible for a small alternate provision for a few pupils for which he planned work alongside a High Level Teaching Assistant. He would occasionally teach a lesson if cover was needed but this was not often. The activities he undertook were unsupervised. The panel also noted Mr Reynolds’ admission that his actions were contrary to the personal and professional conduct expected of a teacher with reference to the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that Mr Reynolds was in breach of the following standards: The Preamble: Teachers are accountable for achieving the highest possible standard in work and conduct…Teachers act with honesty and integrity. Part 2: A teacher is expected to demonstrate consistently high standards of personal and professional conduct… • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by • not undermining fundamental British values, including … the rule of law The panel noted that Mr Reynold’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. They concerned the management and arrangements relating to the provision of holiday activity camps at the School where he was the Assistant Headmaster and undertook the activities detailed above. The Camps were arranged and run by Mr Reynolds and funded by the Council in partnership with schools and third party providers. The panel did not consider that Mr Reynolds’ actions had a potential impact on the safety or security of pupils or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Reynolds’ behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. 9 The panel noted that Mr Reynolds’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning offences related to and involved fraud, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel took into consideration the teacher’s account of the [REDACTED] challenges that he was experiencing at the relevant time and the steps that he had taken to start to address them [REDACTED]. Although the panel found that the evidence before it of Mr Reynolds’ work on school inclusion for pupils, including for those at risk of permanent exclusion, and in providing activities for pupils at the Camps, was of note, the panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Reynolds’ ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding of conviction of relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. The panel found Mr Reynolds’ conviction to be conviction of relevant offences. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of conviction of relevant offences, 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 a 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 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 Reynolds, which involved serious abuse of trust and the operation of a sophisticated scheme, including using bogus invoices, over a period of months to defraud monies available for the operation of the Camps at the School, there was a strong public interest consideration in maintaining public confidence 10 in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct engaged in the case. The panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Reynolds were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was also 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 Reynolds 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 Reynolds in the profession. Whilst there was evidence that Mr Reynolds had ability as an educator, particularly in facilitating engagement with education for children at risk of exclusion, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Reynolds in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher and he exploited 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. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. 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 Reynolds. 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. • the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are ‘relevant matters’ for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosures. • abuse of position of trust … 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. 11 The panel took into account the following mitigating factors: • That Mr Reynolds was a man of good character prior to his commission and conviction of the offences. • That Mr Reynolds admitted the offences and entered a guilty plea at the earliest opportunity in the criminal proceedings. • The admissions made by Mr Reynolds in the TRA proceedings and his engagement with the TRA regulatory process. • Mr Reynolds’ service to the community including his efforts in saving the life of another in distressing circumstances for which he was awarded a Humane Society certificate and his setting up a local help yourself foodbank. • That the holiday activity camps had started out as an honest, community, activity that Mr Reynolds arranged, promoted and supervised. • Mr Reynolds’ genuine remorse for his actions as expressed in the court proceedings and to the TRA and his apologies for his actions. • [REDACTED] • Steps taken by Mr Reynolds to address his offending behaviour [REDACTED]. He had undertaken rehabilitation [REDACTED]. He had been supported by his family. • That he had completed the 300 hours community service and paid the proceeds of crime act order made. • He has engaged in the study of psychology and, [REDACTED], was working in an NHS role assisting undiagnosed adults and their families, including running courses and providing support for those experiencing neurodiversity. • That he worked hard to become a teacher which he had found tough, [REDACTED]. • That he demonstrated insight into the seriousness and impact of his conduct on the Council, the School, the pupils and his colleagues. • The letter of support from [REDACTED], which outlined a number of personal challenges faced by Mr Reynolds, including [REDACTED], and the steps this family member has seen him take to rehabilitate himself [REDACTED]. The panel also noted the following aggravating factors: 12 • That Mr Reynolds’ actions were a serious breach of the trust and responsibility placed in him by the School. • There was a measure of sophistication and planning over time including the use of bogus invoices. • The fraud was sustained over a number of months. In the light of the panel’s findings there was evidence that Mr Reynolds’ actions were deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Reynolds was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. [REDACTED]. Mr Reynolds had a previously good history, having demonstrated high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and having contributed positively to the education sector. The panel accepted that the incidents appeared to be out of character. 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 Reynolds 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 Reynolds. The serious breach of trust involving educational funding, the deliberate and planned steps taken to perpetrate the fraud and the length of time over which it took place 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 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. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. 13 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. These include: • fraud or serious dishonesty. The nature of the offences of which Mr Reynolds was convicted, involving as they did the exploitation of a gap in accounting procedures and planned and sophisticated action over a period of months to defraud funding available for the Camps, weigh in favour of a longer review period. The panel note that these lists are not intended to be exhaustive and panels should consider each case on its individual merits taking into account all of the circumstances involved. The Panel noted that Mr Reynolds stated he had taken steps to address the challenges he faced, [REDACTED], and that he had shown insight into both the seriousness and impact of his conduct. He had also shown remorse and sorrow for his actions. However, the panel noted that he had not provided independent evidence from any support network, wider than his immediate family, available to him to prevent any reoccurrence. The Panel also had a concern that there remained an on-going risk of [REDACTED] and repetition of the offending behaviour due to the relatively limited time period that had elapsed since rehabilitative steps were taken by Mr Reynolds as well as a concern at how embedded a support network he had in place to support his rehabilitation going forward. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the panel determined that a longer review period would be appropriate in this case to take account of the nature of Mr Reynold’s conduct, to reflect the public interest considerations engaged and to allow sufficient time to elapse to enable Mr Reynolds to demonstrate a more prolonged period of successful rehabilitation. The panel 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 provision for a 3-year 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. 14 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 a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Daniel Reynolds should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of three years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Reynolds is in breach of the following standards: The Preamble: Teachers are accountable for achieving the highest possible standard in work and conduct…Teachers act with honesty and integrity. Part 2: A teacher is expected to demonstrate consistently high standards of personal and professional conduct… • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by • not undermining fundamental British values, including … the rule of law The findings of misconduct are serious as they include an Assistant Headteacher being convicted of Fraud. 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 a relevant conviction, 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 Reynolds, 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 has provided this comment: “The panel did not consider that Mr Reynolds’ actions had a potential impact on the safety or security of pupils or members of the public.” I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: 15 “The Panel noted that Mr Reynolds stated he had taken steps to address the challenges he faced, [REDACTED], and that he had shown insight into both the seriousness and impact of his conduct. He had also shown remorse and sorrow for his actions. However, the panel noted that he had not provided independent evidence from any support network, wider than his immediate family, available to him to prevent any reoccurrence.” In my judgement, this evidence of insight and remorse means that the risk of repetition is limited. I have therefore given this element some 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: “Although the panel found that the evidence before it of Mr Reynolds’ work on school inclusion for pupils, including for those at risk of permanent exclusion, and in providing activities for pupils at the Camps, was of note, the panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Reynolds’ ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding of conviction of relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession.” I am particularly mindful in this case of a senior teacher abusing their position for financial gain and the negative impact that such a finding may 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 a relevant conviction, 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 Reynolds himself. The panel notes that: “Mr Reynolds had a previously good history, having demonstrated high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and having contributed positively to the education sector. The panel accepted that the incidents appeared to be out of character.” Elsewhere, the panel makes mention of Mr Reynolds’ contribution to the community and to providing extra-curricular activities for children. 16 A prohibition order would prevent Mr Reynolds 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, its deliberate nature and the abuse of trust inherent in it. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Reynolds has made and is making 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. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended a three-year review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “The Panel also had a concern that there remained an on-going risk of [REDACTED] and repetition of the offending behaviour due to the relatively limited time period that had elapsed since rehabilitative steps were taken by Mr Reynolds as well as a concern at how embedded a support network he had in place to support his rehabilitation going forward. Taking all of these factors into consideration, the panel determined that a longer review period would be appropriate in this case to take account of the nature of Mr Reynold’s conduct, to reflect the public interest considerations engaged and to allow sufficient time to elapse to enable Mr Reynolds to demonstrate a more prolonged period of successful rehabilitation. The panel 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 provision for a 3-year review period.” I have considered whether a three-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, I disagree with the panel’s recommendation as, in my view, they have given insufficient weight to the extent of the insight and remorse demonstrated by the teacher, the contribution that Mr Reynolds has made to teaching and his previous good record, and the mitigating circumstances present in this case. 17 I consider instead therefore that, while the misconduct found by the panel was undoubtedly serious, a two-year review period is sufficient and appropriate to both satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and give Mr Reynolds the opportunity to demonstrate full insight and remorse and in doing so reduce the risk of repetition to a tolerable level. This means that Mr Daniel Reynolds 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 5 September 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 Reynolds remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Reynolds 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: 2 September 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.