Mr David Blight

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 David Blight

Teacher reference number: 97/03286

Teacher's date of birth: 12 March 1966

Location teacher worked: Prudhoe, North East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 to 14 February 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 David Blight formerly employed in Prudhoe, North East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

M r David Blight: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendation, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr David Blight Teacher ref number: 97/03286 Teacher date of birth: 12 March 1966 TRA reference: 20585 Date of determination: 11 April 2025 Former employer: Prudhoe Community High School, Moor Road, Prudhoe Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 to 14 February 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr David Blight. The panel members were Mr Dara Islam (lay panellist – in the chair), Miss Victoria Miller (teacher panellist) and Mr Robert Dowey (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Kim Findlow of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Blight was present and was represented by Mr Richard Matkin [REDACTED] The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 13 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Blight was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: He is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a Teacher at Prudhoe Community High School (‘the School’): 1. Between approximately August 2016 and June 2017 he had a sexual relationship with Former Pupil A and that relationship was inappropriate in that: a) He had previously taught Former Pupil A; and/or b) At the time the sexual relationship commenced he was or ought to have been aware that Former Pupil A was vulnerable. 2. Between approximately August 2016 and June 2017 he had sexual relations with Former Pupil A in public places. 3. Between approximately July 2016 and November 2017, he: a) requested topless and/or naked photographs of Former Pupil A; and/or b) requested that Former Pupil A send him videos of herself of a sexual nature; and/or c) sent photographs of a sexual nature to Former Pupil A. 4. In or around August 2016, he offered Former Pupil A Morphine on one or more occasions. 5. In or around November 2016, he failed to disclose to his employer/the School that he was in a sexual relationship with Former Pupil A when he knew that Former Pupil A had applied for work experience at the School. 6. By reason of the conduct at paragraph 5 he: a) Acted dishonestly, and/or b) Failed to act with integrity Mr Blight admitted allegations 3 a-c and 5. Mr Blight did not admit allegations 1a, 1b, 2, 4 and 6. Mr Blight did not admit to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may 5 bring the profession into disrepute. 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 7 to 10 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 11 to 20 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 21 to 44 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 45 to 563 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 564 to 569 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Email from Teacher's Representative to Kingsley Napley LLP re Additional Documents Witness Statement of the Teacher • Medical Consultation Information Sheet Witness Statement of Person 1 - [REDACTED] Witness Statement of Person 2 – [REDACTED] • Email from Kingsley Napley LLP to Teacher's Representative The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer. Witness 1 [REDACTED] Witness 2 [REDACTED] Witness 3 – Former Pupil A The panel also heard oral evidence from Mr Blight. 6 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 Blight was employed by Prudhoe Community School (“the School”) from 1999 as a teacher of physics and during the period 2010 – 2011 was seconded to the role of assistant head teacher and became the appointed head of sixth form in 2011. Mr Blight taught former Pupil A during 2009 to 2011. In 2016, a GP made a report to the LADO that Mr Blight had engaged in sexual relationship with Former Pupil A after leaving school as this had been reported to the GP by Former Pupil A’s mother. This resulted in the LADO investigating this matter. Further the School carried out an internal investigation. Mr Blight was dismissed from the School in January 2022 and the matter was referred to the TRA on 15 February 2022. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher at Prudhoe Community High School (‘the School’): 1. Between approximately August 2016 and June 2017 you had a sexual relationship with Former Pupil A and that relationship was inappropriate in that: b) At the time the sexual relationship commenced you were or ought to have been aware that Former Pupil A was vulnerable. The panel heard evidence that Former Pupil A should be regarded as vulnerable. This evidence consisted of oral evidence from Former Pupil A regarding [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The panel was provided with hearsay evidence admitted by Witness 1 pertaining to the School’s investigation and disciplinary process. The panel considered the admissibility of this evidence prior to the hearing and agreed to admit the evidence. 7 [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] [REDACTED] Even if he did not draw the conclusion that she was vulnerable with the information set out above, the panel consider he “ought to have known”. Having found that Mr Blight knew or ought to have known that Pupil A was vulnerable, it turned its mind to whether this meant that the sexual relationship with Former Pupil A, that took place between August 2016 and June 2017 and that was admitted by both Mr Blight and Former Pupil A, was inappropriate. There were differing versions of events in the run up to the start of the relationship. Former Pupil A gave evidence that Mr Blight had added her on twitter in 2016 and that she could not remember who messaged first but that a picture was shared by Former Pupil A with a school memory saying “…please say you remember this..”. The panel were shown evidence of this message but there was no date provided. Former Pupil A also gave evidence that during her third year of University in 2016 Mr Blight would drive past her jogging on a running track which was about 4 miles from the School and asked her to get into his car on more than one occasion. Former Pupil A stated that Mr Blight had placed his hand on her thigh and made references to her fancying “older men”. Former Pupil A’s evidence was that she felt Mr Blight was “testing the waters”. Mr Blight denied this version of events and in oral evidence described that, after [REDACTED] and that he had joined social media due to being bored. Mr Blight described in oral evidence that the message exchanges were initiated by Former Pupil A and that Former Pupil A had sent a photograph of her outfit before a night out for his opinion and, at this point, an unsolicited topless photograph was shared. Therefore, Mr Blight’s version of events was that Former Pupil A initiated the contact. Various sexually explicit messages between Former Pupil A and Mr Blight were provided to the panel but, without dates, these did not provide an accurate timeline of how the relationship began. The panel considered that even on Mr Blight’s version of events it would have been clear to Mr Blight that Former Pupil A was demonstrating her vulnerabilities in the way she was behaving in sending a topless picture to a much older man who was a former teacher. [REDACTED]. The panel considered that entering a sexual relationship with a former pupil known to 8 have vulnerabilities was inappropriate in all of the circumstances of this particular case; despite it having been a considerable amount of time since Former Pupil A was at the School and since there was a teacher and pupil relationship. The panel considered that the sexual relationship was exploitative in that holding knowledge of the vulnerabilities would allow Mr Blight to use that to his advantage. [REDACTED]. The panel found this allegation proven. 2. Between approximately August 2016 and June 2017 you had sexual relations with Former Pupil A in public places. Former Pupil A stated that they had sexual intercourse both in Mr Blight’s car and in woodland. Mr Blight did not dispute having sex in the woodland and agreed that he did have sex in the car. The area in which the car was parked was agreed by both Mr Blight and Former Pupil A as being in a “passing place” or “lay by” which was on what was presumed to be farming land which may have been owned privately but that was unverified. The location of the woodland was a