Mr David Polden

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 Polden

Teacher reference number: 1539885

Teacher's date of birth: 16 August 1990

Location teacher worked: Camden, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 December 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 Polden formerly employed in Camden, London.

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 David Polden: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 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 Polden Teacher ref number: 1539885 Teacher date of birth: 16 August 1990 TRA reference: 19989 Date of determination: 2 December 2025 Former employer: Parliament Hill School, London (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 December 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr David Polden. The panel members were Ms Jackie Hutchings (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist) and Ms Kelly Dooley (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lara Small of Birketts LLP 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 Polden that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Polden 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 Carolyn Thackstone, Mr Polden or any representative for Mr Polden. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 7 August 2025. It was alleged that Mr Polden was convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence: 1. In that on 20 April 2023, he was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of: Engage in sexual communications with a child on 1/05/21- 06/05/21 contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1) The panel noted that Mr Polden admitted the allegation as set out in the response to notice of referral form signed by Mr Polden on 31 July 2024, and the statement of a greed facts, signed by him on 16 January 2025 and the presenting officer, Ms Thackstone, on 17 January 2025. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of hearing and response – pages 4 to 17a Section 2: Statement of agreed facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 18 to 23 Section 3: TRA documents – pages 24 to 36 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 37 to 43 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents with in the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the 2020 Procedures. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Polden on 16 January 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. 5 In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Polden 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. Mr Polden was employed as an agency worker and was deployed to work at the School between September 2017 and July 2018. Mr Polden was then employed by the School as a teacher between 1 September 2018 and 20 October 2021. In May 2021, the School discovered a conversation thread on its intranet system, between a pupil, [REDACTED], and Mr Polden which contained messages contended to be of a sexual nature. On 6 May 2021, Mr Polden was arrested on suspicion of sending sexual messages and interviewed under caution. On 7 May 2021, the police wrote to the TRA to inform them that Mr Polden had been arrested. On 13 February 2023 , Mr Polden was convicted at Wood Green Crown Court, of the offence of engaging in sexual communications with a child contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1). 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 13 February 2023, you were convicted at Wood Green Crown Court of: Engage in sexual communications with a child on 01/05/21-06/05/21 contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1) The panel considered the statement of a greed facts, signed by Mr Polden on 16 January 2025, and the response to notice of referral form, signed by Mr Polden on 31 July 2024 in which he admitted to allegation 1. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. 6 The panel was provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Wood Green Crown Court signed on 26 September 2024 which detailed that Mr Polden had been convicted on 13 February 2023 of engaging in sexual communication with a child. On 20 April 2024 Mr Polden was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for 24 months and to be made subject to the Sex Offender Notification Requirements for 7 years. Mr Polden was also ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £128, to carry out 100 hours unpaid work, to undertake an accredited programme for 35 days and to undertake rehabilitation activity requirements for a maximum of 30 days. Following examination of the documents before the panel and the admissions in the statement of agreed facts and the notice of referral form, the panel found allegation 1 proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proven , the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the Advice. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Polden, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Polden was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by: o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position; o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions; and o not undermining fundamental British values, including the rule of law. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. • 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 Mr Polden’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The offence involved sexual communication with a 7 child using the School’s intranet system, which was clearly relevant to Mr Polden’s role and position of trust as a teacher. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Polden’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Polden’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offence committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning the offence of sexual communication with a child, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Polden’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. The panel therefore determined that the facts of the proved allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the p anel 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 p rohibition order should be made, the p anel 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, althou