Mr Gareth Collins

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 Gareth Collins

Teacher reference number: 0578840

Teacher's date of birth: 6 June 1980

Location teacher worked: Gloucester, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 July 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 Gareth Collins, formerly employed in Gloucester, South West 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 Gareth Collins: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 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 5 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: Gareth Collins Teacher ref number: 0578840 Teacher date of birth: 6 June 1980 TRA reference: 24147 Date of determination: 8 July 2025 Former employer: Ribston Hall High School, Gloucester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 8 July 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Gareth Collins. The panel members were Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Laura Mullin (lay panellist) and Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish 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 Collins that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Collins provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer; Mr Cyale Bennett of Browne Jacobson LLP, Mr Collins or any representative for Mr Collins. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 31 March 2025. It was alleged that Mr Collins was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Ribston Hall High School; 1. He engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour with Colleague B by; a) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague B on the School premises; b) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague B during school hours c) Using his mobile phone to send messages of an explicit nature to Colleague B during school hours. 2. His conduct at allegation 1 was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated. Mr Collins admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2 as set out in the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Collins on 21 January 2025. 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 – page 5 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 7 to 13b Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 14 to 20 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 21 to 109 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 110 to 116 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 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Collins on 21 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. Mr Collins was employed as a teacher at Ribston Hall High School (‘the School’) from September 2015 to July 2024. On 26 June 2024, the School was contacted by a third party regarding Mr Collins and Colleague B engaging in sexual intercourse on the School premises. Screenshots were taken of the messages between Mr Collins and Colleague B. Mr Collins admitted that he had engaged in sexual intercourse with Colleague B on the School premises during school hours and that he had sent and received messages on his phone during school hours that were of an explicit sexual nature. The matter was referred to the TRA on 18 July 2024. 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: 1. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour with Colleague B by; a) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague B on the School premises; b) Engaging in sexual intercourse and/or sexual activity with Colleague B during school hours 6 c) Using your mobile phone to send messages of an explicit nature to Colleague B during school hours. The panel noted that Mr Collins admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c). The panel considered the screenshots of the WhatsApp messages between Mr Collins and Colleague B. The panel noted the following in particular: [REDACTED] The panel noted and carefully considered the notes of the investigatory meeting of the School of 8 July 2024 and the disciplinary meeting of 16 July 2024. The panel noted that these documents contained hearsay evidence but considered it was in the interests of justice to admit it and consider it as it was relevant, though it carefully considered the weight it placed upon it. The panel noted that in the investigatory meeting in response to the questions: • “Did you engage in sexual activity and sexual intercourse in school with a member of staff?” Mr Collins responded “Yes”. • “Over what period of time and on how many occasions did this happen in school” Mr Collins responded “Sporadically – a few years” • “Where did this activity take place in school? Was it in your classroom?” Mr Collins responded “Yes, my classroom” • “When did this take place in school – before school, after school, during the school day?” Mr Collins responded “GC: Large majority after school – also in gain time” Also, when confronted with copies of the messages of which the panel have since had sight, the panel noted that in that meeting in response to the questions: • “Did you send/receive these messages?” Mr Collins responded “Yes” • “Who did you send the messages to?” Mr Collins identified Colleague B • “Who did you receive the messages in these photos from?” Mr Collins identified Colleague B • “Are the arrangements detailed in the messages a representation of liaisons that took place in school?” Mr Collins responded “Yes” The panel also noted that in that investigatory meeting Mr Collins identified Colleague B as the individual with whom he had engaged in sexual intercourse and sexual activity on School premises. 7 The panel also noted that Mr Collins was clear in that investigatory meeting that no one had seen them engage in these activities. The panel noted that during his disciplinary meeting Mr Collins admitted that he had engaged in sexual activities and sexual intercourse on the School site during working hours with a member of teaching staff. Mr Collins also appeared to admit in this meeting that some messages were sent during school hours. The panel found allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) proven on the balance of probabilities. 2. Your conduct at allegation 1 was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated. The panel noted that Mr Collins admitted allegation 2. The panel’s attention was drawn to section 78 Sexual Offences Act 2003 and to the cases of Sait v The General Medical Council [2018], Basson v General Medical Council [2018] and The General Medical Council v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518. The panel considered whether the conduct was sexually motivated. It noted that in Basson it was stated that, “A sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship”. The panel was also mindful of the Court of Appeal’s conclusion in General Medical Council v Haris [2021] EWCA Civ 763. The panel again considered the allegations which it had found proved and the evidence from which they derived. The panel found that on the evidence, Mr Collins had clearly pursued a sexual relationship with Colleague B and that there was sufficient evidence to prove that his conduct was sexually motivated. The panel felt that Mr Collins was clearly seeking sexual gratification from his conduct with Colleague B, and had engaged in sexual intercourse with her on the School premises. The panel therefore considered that Mr Collins’ conduct as found proved at allegation 1 was sexually motivated. The panel felt that the conduct of Mr Collins was inherently sexual in nature, in that he engaged in sexual intercourse on the School premises during school hours and exchanged messages that were sexually explicit in nature. The panel considered that Mr Collins’ conduct as found proven at allegation 1 was therefore sexual in nature. The panel found allegation 2 proven. 8 Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all 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”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Collins, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Collins was in breach of the following standards:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within