Mr David Noble

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 Noble

Teacher reference number: 8772875

Teacher's date of birth: 31 July 1965

Location teacher worked: Rugby, Warwickshire

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 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 Noble, formerly employed in Rugby, Warwickshire.

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.

David Noble: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr David Noble Teacher ref number: 8772875 Teacher date of birth: 31 July 1965 TRA reference: 20087 Date of determination: 24 February 2025 Former employer: Bilton Grange Preparatory School, Rugby Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 February 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr David Noble. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist) and Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Laurence Harris of Mountford Chambers. Mr David Noble was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of hearing dated 11 November 2024. It was alleged that Mr David Noble was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that while employed as a Teacher at Bilton Grange Preparatory School of: 1. Making 2 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs a child of Category A between 30 March 2017 and 27 March 2021 contrary to s.1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. 2. Making 24 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs a child of Category B between 30 March 2017 and 27 March 2021 contrary to s.1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. 3. Making 67 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs a child of Category C between 30 March 2017 and 27 March 2021 contrary to s.1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Noble has not engaged with the TRA and therefore in the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. Preliminary applications Proceeding in Absence The panel considered whether this hearing should continue in the absence of the teacher. The panel was satisfied that TRA had complied with the service requirements of paragraph 19(1) (a) to (c) of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, (the “Regulations”). The panel was also satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings complied with paragraphs 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 5.47 of the Procedures to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel took as its starting point the principle from R v Jones that its discretion to commence a hearing in the absence of the teacher has to be exercised with the utmost care and caution, and that its discretion is a severely constrained one. In considering the question of fairness, the panel recognised that fairness to the professional is of prime importance but that it also encompasses the fair, economic, expeditious and efficient 5 disposal of allegations against the professional, as was explained in GMC v Adeogba & Visvardis. In making its decision, the panel noted that the teacher may waive his right to participate in the hearing. The panel firstly took account of the various factors drawn to its attention from the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC1. i) On the last occasion that contact was established with Mr Noble on 18 November 2024. The TRA had made extensive investigations regarding Mr Noble’s current address and attempted to serve the bundle to him on 13 November 2024 which, however, was returned to sender as seen in a delivery notification from the Royal Mail. The panel therefore believed that Mr Noble had decided not to engage with the TRA hearing. The panel considered that the teacher had waived his right to be present at the hearing, knowing when and where the hearing is taking place. ii) Based on the lack engagement from Mr Noble to the TRA representatives, it was considered unlikely that an adjournment might result in the teacher attending voluntarily. iii) At the stage of the panel’s considerations, it was unclear how long any such adjournment would be required to obtain Mr Noble’s engagement with the hearing. iv) The panel noted that Mr Noble was not represented and the panel had not received any correspondence or application from Mr Noble to adjourn the hearing to obtain legal representation. v) The panel would be disadvantaged by not having Mr Noble give his account of events, having regard to the nature of the allegations against him. The panel did have the details of the conviction. The panel recognised that they needed to exercise vigilance in making its decision, taking into account the degree of risk of the panel reaching the wrong decision as a result of not having heard the teacher’s account. vi) The panel believed that there was a limited risk of reaching an improper conclusion about the absence of the teacher. vii) The panel recognised that the allegations against the teacher were serious and that there was a real risk that if proven, the panel would be required to consider whether to recommend that the teacher ought to be prohibited from teaching. viii) The panel recognised that the efficient disposal of allegations against teacher was required to ensure the protection of pupils and to maintain confidence in the profession. The conduct alleged was said to have taken place whilst the teacher was employed at the Bilton Grange Preparatory School (the “School”). The School would have an interest in this hearing taking place in order to move forward. 6 ix) The panel noted that there were no witnesses present at the hearing. The panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the teacher. The panel considered that in light of the teacher’s waiver of his right to appear; by taking such measures referred to above to address that unfairness insofar as was possible; that on balance, these were serious allegations and the public interest in this hearing proceeding within a reasonable time was in favour of this hearing continuing. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Pleadings – pages 2 to 9 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 10 to 71 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses No summary of the evidence given is required as evidence that was material to the panel’s decision is captured in the reasons, below. 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 Noble had been employed at Bilton Grange Preparatory School (the “School”) since 1 September 1996. He taught ICT and French at the School and was a lay chaplain. On 2 April 2021, Mr Noble was arrested at his residence on the school estate. Mr Noble was sentenced for three convictions as set out in the allegations on 23 October 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted of a relevant offence while employed as a Teacher at Bilton Grange Preparatory School of: 7 1. Making 2 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs a child of Category A between 30 March 2017 and 27 March 2021 contrary to s.1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. 2. Making 24 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs a child of Category B between 30 March 2017 and 27 March 2021 contrary to s.1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. 3. Making 67 indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs a child of Category C between 30 March 2017 and 27 March 2021 contrary to s.1(a) Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel had seen a certificate of conviction confirming that Mr Noble was convicted as alleged. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. Mr Noble was sentenced to a community order of 100 hours of unpaid work, required to participate in an accredited programme for 60 days, and a rehabilitation activity requirement for 40 days. He was also ordered to register with the police for 5 years and was subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years. It is unclear from the evidence whether Mr Noble pled guilty to the offences. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Noble, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Noble 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 having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that the offences for which Mr