Mr Gareth Llewellyn

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 Llewellyn

Teacher reference number: 0301868

Teacher's date of birth: 18 February 1971

Location teacher worked: Coventry, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 22 September to 29 September 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 Llewellyn formerly employed in Coventry, West Midlands.

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 Llewellyn: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 23 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Gareth Llewellyn Teacher ref number: 0301868 Teacher date of birth: 18 February 1971 TRA reference: 22733 Date of determination: 29 September 2025 Former employer: Sidney Stringer Academy, Coventry. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened from 22-29 September 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Gareth Llewellyn. The panel members were Mr Ian McKim, (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Cathy Logan, (teacher panellist) and Ms Claire Shortt, (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jonathan White of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Gareth Llewellyn was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and not recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 10 April 2025. It was alleged that Mr Gareth Llewellyn was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: Allegation 1 ([REDACTED]) [REDACTED] Allegation 2 (Student B) 2. In relation to Student B: a. On or around 5 September 2021, he asked Student B for their personal mobile number and/or personal email address; and/or b. On or around 25 March 2023 and/or 18 November 2022 he accessed and/or viewed Student B’s social media account on BeReal; and/or c. Between around September 2021 and April 2023, he exchanged inappropriate and/or over-familiar emails with Student B via work and/or personal email addresses; and/or d. During February 2023, he arranged to meet Student B at the School during half term and did not tell the School about this. Allegation 3 (Student C) 3. In relation to Student C: a. Between 7 February 2022 and 18 July 2022, he sent inappropriate and/or over-familiar emails asking to speak in person and/or over the phone and/or on Google Meet; and/or b. On or around 8 February 2022, he attempted to call Student C on their personal mobile number; and/or c. He failed to safeguard Pupil C in that he did not report on CPOMS contact he had with Student C after January 2022 and/or any concerns raised by Student C. Allegation 4 (Students [REDACTED], H, D) 4. In or around October 2022 he: a. drove [REDACTED], Student H and/or Student D to [REDACTED] in his car; and/or 5 b. went shopping in [REDACTED] with [REDACTED], Student H and/or Student D and purchased items for them. Allegation 5 (Student E) 5. In relation to Student E: a. Between around November 2022 and May 2023, he exchanged inappropriate and/or over-familiar emails including: i. On or around 27 November 2022, he told Student E “You are an amazing young lady” and/or “please don’t forget how very proud I am of you” or words to that effect; and/or ii. On or around 2 December 2022, he told Student E “This is really important that you understand how important you are” and/or “I will always make time for you” or words to that effect. b. He: i. In or around September 2022, exchanged personal mobile numbers with Student E; and/or ii. Between around September 2022 and May 2023, exchanged inappropriate and/or over-familiar messages via Whatsapp; and/or c. He hugged Student E on more than one occasion; and/or d. On one or more occasions he made inappropriate comments regarding Student E’s appearance and/or body; and/or e. He did not safeguard Student E in that he did not report concerns outlined in Schedule 1 via CPOMS at all and/or in a timely manner. Allegation 6 (sexual motivation) 6. His conduct at paragraphs [REDACTED] 2a and/or 2c and/or 2d and/or 3a and/or 3b and/or 4a and/or 4b and/or 5ai and/or 5aii and/or 5bi and/or 5bii and/or 5c and/or 5d was sexually motivated. Allegation 7 (sexual in nature) 7. His conduct as outlined at paragraphs [REDACTED] 5c and/or 5d was sexual in nature. Allegation 8 (dishonesty, lack of integrity) [REDACTED] 6 Schedule 1 (relevant to Allegation 5) i. Concerns relating to [REDACTED] issues raised in or around September 2022. In consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document ‘Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (“the procedures”). Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 5 to 8 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and response – pages 9 to 19 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 20 to 65 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 66 to 821 In addition, the panel had also been provided with the following: Service bundle – 50 pages. TRA skeleton submissions for the substantive hearing – 36 pages. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundles, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Colleague A – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] Student D Student E Witness F – [REDACTED] 7 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Introduction Mr Llewellyn commenced employment at the Sidney Stringer Academy (“the school”) on 1 January 2020 as a business teacher and form tutor. He was suspended on 9 May 2023. [REDACTED] An investigation was commenced by the school, conducted by Witness C. In the course of that investigation, further concerns were raised. Mr Llewellyn was subsequently referred to the TRA on 7 November 2023. Evidence considered by the panel The panel carefully considered all of the written and oral evidence presented and the submissions made. It accepted the legal advice provided. In the absence of any response to the Notice of Hearing, the panel proceeded on the basis that all the allegations were denied. The panel was mindful of the need to exercise its own independent judgement and not rely upon opinions recorded. It was for the panel, not anyone else, to draw inferences and conclusions from facts that it found proved. The panel heard and accepted legal advice on opinion evidence. The panel was also mindful that it should treat the hearsay evidence in this case in a careful manner. In the absence of hearing from these individuals, and being able to test their accounts, this evidence was treated with caution by the panel. The panel also heard and accepted legal advice with regard to the issue of how to deal with hearsay evidence. In assessing what weight to attach to this hearsay evidence, the panel considered all of the circumstances, including the extent to which it was supported or contradicted by other oral and documentary evidence in the case. 8 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: [REDACTED] The panel found Allegation 1 proved in full. 2. In relation to Student B: a. On or around 5 September 2021, you asked Student B for their personal mobile number and/or personal email address; and/or b. On or around 25 March 2023 and/or 18 November 2022 you accessed and/or viewed Student B’s social media account on BeReal; and/or c. Between around September 2021 and April 2023, you exchanged inappropriate and/or over-familiar emails with Student B via work and/or personal email addresses; and/or d. During February 2023, you arranged to meet Student B at the School during half term and did not tell the School about this. The panel was presented with evidence, obtained by the school during its investigation, of emails between Student B and Mr Llewellyn. On 5 September 2021, at 00.36, Mr Llewellyn had replied to an email from Student B. Within that email, Mr Llewellyn wrote “I will call you if you let me know your number or email you on Tuesday when I get a break to give you the information that you will need ”. The panel found that this was a request for a phone number. Student B replied to this email by providing her mobile number and her personal email address. In the investigation meeting with Student B, Student B told Witness C that she had given her mobile number to Mr Llewellyn as he had said to communicate why she could not come in to school on a particular day . The panel found that Mr Llewellyn had asked Student B for her personal email address and/or mobile number and therefore found Allegation 2a proved. The panel read the emails exchanged between Mr Llewellyn and Student B. These included one on 18 November 2022 at 21.56 that included “Glad you went home and loved you be real [sic]”. Another email on 25 March 2023 included “ Hihi [Student B], yes I saw your BeReal too!!”. 9 In the investigation meeting with Student B, Student B told Witness C that BeReal was social media. Witness C gave evidence before the panel and explained that it was a photo- sharing platform. On the basis of the evidence presented, the panel found that that Mr Llewellyn had accessed and viewed Student B’s BeReal account and therefore Allegation 2b was proved. The panel reviewed the emails between Mr Llewellyn and Student B between September 2021 and April 2023 , that were presented to it . The panel noted that some of the emails were sent from Mr Llewellyn’s personal email address to Student B’s personal email address and others used the school account. This meant that some of the emails could not be monitored by the school. Witness F’s evidence was that messaging students from a personal device was a breach of the school's code of conduct and the school’s child protection and safeguarding policy. The panel saw emails that were sent out of school hours, and on weekends. In addition to the emails asking for contact details and those relating to BeReal, the panel found the following parts of emails sent by Mr Llewellyn to be particularly relevant: • “You don't need to be so hard with me. You can expose your feelings and not keep them bottled in. Also get used to a supportive hug from an old man!!! Cheeky!! There will be more”. • “…what an amazing young lady you are. Those lives that are fortunate enough to have you in them are very lucky. I count myself as one of those”. • “It’s ok you don’t need to make excuses that you want to see me as soon as possible tomorrow as I know u missed me [emojis]”. • “Thank you so much! I really appreciate it you are so sweet x”. The panel found that the messages sent between September 2021 and April 2023 were inappropriate and over-familiar and Allegation 2c was therefore proved. The panel was presented with evidence that Mr Llewellyn had arranged to meet Student B during the February 2023 half -term. In the investigation interview with Student B she had explained that she had emailed Mr Llewellyn to come into the school to plan for an interview over the school holiday. In his investigation meeting Mr Llewellyn confirmed that he had met Student B during school holidays, possibly including February. Mr Llewellyn had stated that Individual A, and others in the business department were aware, but that he had not sought permission. In his investigation interview, Individual A confirmed that there were no school interventions or study sessions planned in his department in the February 2023 half term. Individual A said that he did not recall Mr Llewellyn telling him verbally that he would be coming into school with Student B during the February 2023 half term and that Mr Llewellyn had never asked to do so. Individual B had also confirmed in his investigation interview that there were no approved interventions 10 for the February half -term and that he would have been aware of any such interventions during school holidays. The panel found that Mr Llewellyn had arranged to meet Student B at the school during the February 2023 half term and that he had not told the school about this. The appropriate protocols had not been followed to ensure safeguarding for all parties involved in the meeting. Allegation 2d was therefore proved. 3. In relation to Student C: a. Between 7 February 2022 and 18 July 2022, you sent inappropriate and/or overfamiliar emails asking to speak in person and/or over the phone and/or on Google Meet; and/or b. On or around 8 February 2022, you attempted to call Student C on their personal mobile number; and/or c. You failed to safeguard Pupil C in that you did not report on CPOMS contact you had with Student C after January 2022 and/or any concerns raised by Student C. The panel was presented with evidence, obtained by the school during its investigation, of emails between Mr Llewellyn and Student C between 7 February 2022 and 18 July 2022 . The panel noted that on 7 February 2022 Student C had initially asked Mr Llewellyn for a phone number as she needed some advice. It was clear from the email exchanges that Mr Llewellyn had tried to call Student C the following day and so the panel inferred that Mr Llewellyn had obtained Student C’s phone number. The panel noted that Mr Llewellyn emailed Student C, on six occasions between 8 February 2022 and 8 April 2022, seemingly because Student C was not responding. These emails included suggestions of arranging a Google Meet. When Student C did respond, shortly before the Easter holidays, she told Mr Llewellyn that she would stay in contact after the break. Mr Llewellyn immediately replied and said that she did not need to wait until after holidays and “ we can meet and chat whenever you feel you can”. The email concluded “As always I will still be contacting you regardless [emoji of smiley face]”. The panel reviewed subsequent emails and noted that in one email Mr Llewellyn wrote “…we have commented on your style and class with your fashion and the outfits you wear in such a positive way.” It was also apparent from the emails that Mr Llewellyn had met Student C on Google Meets. Mr Llewellyn admitted to meeting Student C in this way during his school investigation meeting, stating that it was for the purposes of counselling. 11 There was further persistence in Mr Llewellyn’s emails in the face of non -responses from Student C in June and July 2022. The panel found that the emails were inappropriate and over -familiar; whilst Mr Llewellyn did have permission to make contact over Google Meets, this was limited to contact during school hours for educational purposes such as setting work. However, the messages included suggestions of a meeting during the Easter school holidays . T he attempts to contact Student C were persistent and repeated and one of the emails contained a comment about Student C’s clothing. In his investigation meeting Mr Llewellyn referred to counselling Student C. Witness C told the panel that Mr Llewellyn did not have a counselling qualification. The panel therefore found Allegation 3a proved. As noted previously, Mr Llewellyn referred in his email of 8 February 2022 to having attempted to telephone Student C and the panel therefore found Allegation 3b proved. The panel heard evidence from Witness F that Mr Llewellyn had not made any entry on the CPOMS system regarding Student C since January 2022 , when he had logged a pastoral, as opposed to a safeguarding concern . The panel had reviewed the emails between Student C and Mr Llewellyn and found that there were emails from Student C raising concerns and issues about Student C that Mr Llewellyn should have escalated to CPOMS after that date. The school’s Child Protection and Safeguarding Policy was clear that staff should be prepared to identify students who may benefit from early help and discuss with the safeguarding lead in the first instance. It fu rther made clear that if a staff member was unsure then they should seek advice from the Designated Safeguarding Lead, which was Witness F. Witness F’s evidence was that Student C appeared to be vulnerable. The panel found that Mr Llewellyn should have reported the concerns arising from Student C’s emails in order to discharge his safeguarding duties, and failed to do so. Allegation 3c was therefore proved. 4. In or around October 2022 you: a. drove [REDACTED] Student H and/or Student D to [REDACTED] in your car; and/or b. went shopping in [REDACTED] with [REDACTED] Student H and/or Student D and purchased items for them. The panel heard evidence from Student D who explained that during the October 2022 half term she, [REDACTED] and Student H had met with Mr Llewellyn at the school. This had been Mr Llewellyn’s suggestion. He had told Student D that the whole class had been invited. Student D’s evidence was that after one to two hours of revision, Mr Llewellyn had 12 suggested that they “ do something fun ” and that they go to [REDACTED] to buy some cooking ingredients, which they would then come back and cook at the school. Student D said that they went in Mr Llewellyn’s car to [REDACTED] and each got a pumpkin for carving and some baking ingredients. She stated that Mr Llewellyn paid for all the items. In his investigation meeting, Individual A had said that he was aware of Mr Llewellyn running one day for revision and one for cooking during the October half term. However Individual A had said that the ingredients would have been brought to the school for this purpose and there would be no need to leave the premises. Individual A did not recall being asked to give permission for a trip to [REDACTED]. The panel accepted Student D’s evidence and found Allegation 4 (a) and (b) proved. 5. In relation to Student E: a. Between around November 2022 and May 2023, you exchanged inappropriate and/or over-familiar emails including: i. On or around 27 November 2022, you told Student E “You are an amazing young lady” and/or “please don’t forget how very proud I am of you” or words to that effect; and/or ii. On or around 2 December 2022, you told Student E “This is really important that you understand how important you are” and/or “I will always make time for you” or words to that effect. b. You: i. In or around September 2022, exchanged personal mobile numbers with Student E; and/or ii. Between around September 2022 and May 2023, exchanged inappropriate and/or over-familiar messages via Whatsapp; and/or c. You hugged Student E on more than one occasion; and/or d. On one or more occasions you made inappropriate comments regarding Student E’s appearance and/or body; and/or e. You did not safeguard Student E in that you did not report concerns outlined in Schedule 1 via CPOMS at all and/or in a timely manner. Schedule 1 13 i. Concerns relating to [REDACTED] issues raised in or around September 2022. The panel reviewed the emails sent from Mr Llewellyn to Student E on 27 November 2022 and 2 December 2022 and noted that they were in the terms set out in Allegation 5ai and 5aii. The panel considered whether they were inappropriate and/or over -familiar. The panel found that the language used in each of these emails was both over -familiar and inappropriate. The panel also had regard to the context in which the emails had been sent. There were a number of emails from Mr Llewellyn to Student E that were out of school hours, including on weekends. Allegation 5ai and 5aii was therefore proved. Student E’s evidence was that at the start of Year [REDACTED] she had given Mr Llewellyn her phone number and that they would then message each other on WhatsApp. The panel found that that these exchanges could not have taken place without Mr Llewellyn also providing his phone number and therefore Allegation 5bi was proved. Student E had not retained the WhatsApp messages that took place between them and so the panel was unable to review them. However, the panel considered that exchanging WhatsApp messages was, in and of itself, an inappropriate and over -familiar means of communication, particularly in the context of inappropriate and over-familiar emails having been exchanged. Student E’s evidence was that the WhatsApp messages were more personal than the emails. Student E said that these messages were also sent during school holidays and included a suggestion of meeting up, which Student E found “weird” and a suggestion of a Google Meet, which Student E was not comfortable with. The panel found Allegation 5bii proved. Student E’s evidence to the panel was that she hugged Mr Llewellyn on several occasions. This would be if she was upset or if it was the end of term. Student E did not feel uncomfortable about this and said that lots of students would hug teachers, although Mr Llewellyn was the only male teacher to hug her. The panel accepted Student E’s evidence and found Allegation 5c proved. Student E’s evidence was that Mr Llewellyn used to make comments about her appearance. On one occasion he said to her “ looking at your body now, it’s a really nice body and your weight is all in the correct areas”. On another occasion Mr Llewellyn said to her “your boobs are popping out ”. On other occasions Mr Llewellyn would tell Student E that she was the “ prettiest girl ”. Student E believed he was doing so to boost her confidence. 14 Student E described another occasion on which Mr Llewellyn reached towards her lanyard. Thinking that he was going to touch her on her chest, Student E pulled away. Mr Llewellyn then said words to the effect that he would ‘buy her a drink first’. In his investigation interview, Mr Llewellyn accepted that he may have made some comments, either aimed at being supportive or, to “protect her modesty”. In relation to the comment about buying Student E a drink, Mr Llewellyn said that he might have made an inappropriate joke. Student E told the panel that she did not find Mr Llewellyn’s comments inappropriate, but that [REDACTED] at the time, considered them to be so. The panel found that there was clear evidence from Student E of the comments having been made. The panel found that any comment from a teacher to a student that about their appearance or clothing was inappropriate. On that basis, the panel found each of the comments described by Student E above to be inappropriate. Allegation 5d was therefore proved. The panel reviewed the messages and noted that Student E had raised issues relating to [REDACTED] in September 2022. Although Mr Llewellyn had made an entry on CPOMS in July 2022, there were no subsequent entries. The evidence of Witness F was that Student E was considered vulnerable. The panel considered that in order to comply with the school’s Child Protection and Safeguarding Policy, Mr Llewellyn should have updated CPOMs in September 2022. He had failed to do so and Allegation 5e was therefore proved. 6. Your conduct at paragraphs [REDACTED] 2a and/or 2c and/or 2d and/or 5ai and/or 5aii and/or 5bi and/or 5bii and/or 5c and/or 5d was sexually motivated. [REDACTED] The panel considered whether the conduct at Allegation 2a and/or 2c and/or 2d was sexually motivated. The panel considered that Mr Llewellyn’s request for personal contact details from Student B, had to be viewed in the context of the subsequent inappropriate and over-familiar emails sent by Mr Llewellyn and the unauthorised meeting with Student B at the school in the half- term. Although the conduct at Allegation 2b was not alleged to have been sexually motivated, the fact that Mr Llewellyn had accessed Student B’s social media was relevant to the context of his other conduct in relation to Student B. The panel noted that Mr Llewellyn, during his investigation interview had said that he was acting in a “paternal” role involving counselling. He had also stated that there was nothing “untoward” or “sexual” in his contact with Student B. However, Mr Llewellyn was aware of school procedures in relation to pastoral and safeguarding support and no part of those procedures permitted contact on personal channels, contact outside school hours without 15 prior permission or the exchanges of inappropriate messages in any format. The panel found nothing in these messages amounted to counselling and, as previously noted, Mr Llewellyn was not trained in counselling. The panel took account of Colleague A’s opinion, that Mr Llewellyn was grooming female students [REDACTED], on the basis of her professional experience , but made its own assessment. In particular, the panel took account of the content of the messages sent to Student B by Mr Llewellyn. The panel also took account of the fact that the meeting with Student B in the half -term break was not authorised and that Mr Llewellyn had not made the necessary notifications that he would have had to do if the basis of the meeting was legitimate. The panel considered that the behaviour at Allegations 2a, c and d was all part of an escalating course of conduct on the part of Mr Llewelyn. There was no good reason for Mr Llewelyn to ask for personal contact details or to communicate with Student B using personal channels, which the school could not monitor. There was no plausible reason for him wanting to meet Student B in school during the half -term break without notification or authorisation. The panel found that Mr Llewelyn’s conduct was in the purs uit of a future sexual relationship with Student B. Allegation 6 was therefore proved in relation to the conduct at Allegations 2a, 2c and 2d. The panel considered whether the conduct at Allegation 5ai and/or 5aii and/or 5bi and/or 5bii and/or 5c and/or 5d was sexually motivated. The panel considered that Mr Llewellyn’s request for personal contact details from Student E, had to be viewed in the context of the subsequent inappropriate and over-familiar emails sent by Mr Llewellyn, the WhatsApp messages, the inappropriate comments a nd the hugging of Student E by Mr Llewellyn. This included references to wanting to meet outside school and the inappropriate remark about buying Student E a drink when she had thought he was going to touch her chest area. The panel noted that Mr Llewellyn, during his investigation interview had said the nature of his relationship with Student E was “ paternal” and “ supportive”. However, again, Mr Llewellyn was aware of school procedures in relation to pastoral and safeguarding support and no part of those procedures permitted contact on personal channels, contact outside school hours without prior permission, the exchanges of ina ppropriate messages or the making of inappropriate comments about a student’s appearance. The panel found nothing in Mr Llewellyn’s conduct in relation to Student E, as set out at Allegation 5, to be supportive or paternal. The panel again took account of Colleague A’s opinion, that Mr Llewellyn was grooming female students [REDACTED], on the basis of her professional experience, but made its own assessment. In particular, the panel took account of the nature of the comments Mr 16 Llewellyn made to Student E, both verbally and in writing. The panel considered that the behaviour at Allegations 5ai, 5aii, 5bi, 5bii, 5c and 5d was all part of an escalating course of conduct on the part of Mr Llewelyn. There was no good reason for Mr Llewelyn to ask for personal contact details or to communicate with Student E using personal channels, which the school could not monitor. There was no credible explanation for the nature of the messages or the comments made to Student E other than Mr Llewellyn seeking to pursue a future sexual relationship with Student E. Allegation 6 was therefore proved in relation to the conduct at conduct at Allegations 5ai, 5aii, 5bi, 5bii, 5c and 5d. 7. Your conduct as outlined at paragraphs [REDACTED], 5c and/or 5d was sexual in nature. The panel having found that the conduct at Allegations [REDACTED], 5c and 5d to be sexually motivated, for the reasons set out above, it followed logically that the conduct was sexual in nature in relation to those matters. Allegation 7 was therefore proved. [REDACTED] The panel found Allegation 8 proved in full. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you not proved, for these reasons: 6. Your conduct at paragraphs 3a and/or 3b and/or 4a and/or 4b was sexually motivated. In relation to Student C, the emails sent by Mr Llewellyn did not contain references to her appearance. There was one reference to her “outfits” but this referred to comments that were arguably made in the context of a wider class discussion. The nature of the telephone call was not described in any detail. The panel found that although Mr Llewellyn had engaged in a serious breach of professional boundaries and safeguarding duties, it was not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that Mr Llewellyn ha d sent the emails or made the phone call for the purposes of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. Allegation 6 was therefore not proved in relation to Allegations 3a or 3b. In relation to the trip to [REDACTED], there was no allegation of inappropriate messages from Mr Llewellyn to Student D or to Student H. [REDACTED]. The panel had to therefore consider whether the trip to [REDACTED] was, in and of itself, sexually motivated. While it was undoubtedly a serious breach of boundaries and Mr Llewellyn’s safeguarding duties, the panel was not satisfied to the requisite standard of proof that Mr Llewellyn had taken 17 the students to [REDACTED] or paid for items bought there, for the purposes of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. Allegation 6 was therefore not proved in relation to Allegations 4a or 4b. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number 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 in respect of each Allegation, whether the conduct of Mr Llewellyn, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel also considered the Allegations found proved cumulatively. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Llewellyn 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 ▪ Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. ▪ Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Llewellyn, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of paragraphs 7 -9 and 52 -53 of Keeping Children Safe In Education (September 2022) (“KCSIE”). The panel also considered whether Mr Llewellyn’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 18 The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that none of these offences was relevant, principally as there was insufficient evidence that the students in question were under 18 at the time of Mr Llewellyn’s conduct. The panel considered that Mr Llewellyn had committed a gross breach of his position of trust in respect of each of the students in this matter. The students had trusted Mr Llewellyn and he had abused that by breaching professional boundaries, in some instances in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. Some of these students had been vulnerable, which aggravated this brea ch of trust. [REDACTED]. He had also presented himself as attempting to help his students, when in fact his motives were self-serving. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Llewellyn amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Llewellyn was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Llewellyn’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Llewellyn’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Llewellyn was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that none of these offences was relevant. The panel noted that the advice is not intended to be exhaustive and there may be other behaviours that panels consider to be “conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute”. In this case, the panel considered that the public would be gravely concerned to learn that a teacher had conducted himself in the way Mr Llewellyn had. The panel considered that Mr Llewellyn’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher . For these reasons, t he panel found that Mr Llewellyn’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 19 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 ha d 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 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 safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils/the protection of other members of the public. • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. The panel’s findings in relation to Mr Llewellyn included findings of inappropriate communications with students, some of which were sexually motivated and multiple breaches of his safeguarding obligations. The panel had also found that Mr Llewellyn had [REDACTED]. There was therefore a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of Mr Llewellyn’s inappropriate relationships with students. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Llewellyn was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was 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 Llewellyn 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 Llewellyn in the profession. The panel noted that Mr Llewellyn had been well-regarded by colleagues prior to this incident and he had satisfactory references from his previous employment. However, the panel noted that these references did not provide any evidence that he had made a pa rticularly valuable contribution to teaching. Further, the high regard in which he had been held at the school was an opinion formed at a time when, unknown to other staff, Mr Llewellyn was engaging 20 in the conduct that the panel had found proved. He had joined the school in 2020 and the misconduct spanned two academic years from September 2021 until his suspension in May 2023. Therefore, whilst there is evidence that Mr Llewellyn had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh ed any interest in retaining Mr Llewellyn in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. 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 in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. In this case, Mr Llewellyn had exploited his position of trust in order to pursue a future sexual relationship with some of his students, which the panel considered to be significantly serious. 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 Llewellyn. 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 profes sional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; ▪ misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; ▪ abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils); ▪ an abuse of any trust, knowledge, or influence gained through their professional position in order to advance a romantic or sexual relationship with a pupil or former pupil; ▪ sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; ▪ failure to act on evidence that indicated a child’s welfare may have been at risk , in this case the failure to report on CPOMS and/or notify the designated safeguarding lead; 21 ▪ failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE); ▪ [REDACTED], including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences; ▪ collusion or concealment including: o any activity that involves knowingly substantiating another person’s statements where they are known to be false – in this case his own; o failure to challenge inappropriate actions, defending inappropriate actions or concealing inappropriate actions; o lying to prevent the identification of wrongdoing. 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. The panel had regard to Mr Llewellyn’s letter to the school in advance of his disciplinary hearing, which he did not attend. In that letter he conceded that his actions had been unacceptable, though he denied any sexual motivation and his de scription of what he believed he had done wrong was generalised and limited. There was limited insight into his conduct and no remorse for the impact on the students. Mr Llewellyn had referred to his [REDACTED] in the letter, but again had not been specific and no medical evidence had been provided. The panel concluded that [REDACTED] most likely arose from the stress of the investigation rather than amounting to a mitigating factor behind the conduct. As noted above, Mr Llewellyn did not demonstrate exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or evidence of having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel did not accept that the incident was out of character on the basis that Mr Llewellyn had been engaging in inappropriate behaviour with multiple students at the same time and over a significant period of time. This could not be described as a “one-off”. 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 22 unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Llewellyn of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweigh ed the interests of Mr Llewellyn. The seriousness of the misconduct, the length of time over which it continued, the fact that it involved multiple students and the gross breach of trust were significant factors in forming that opinion. Accordingly , the panel ma de 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 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. This included: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons; For the reasons already set out, the panel found this engaged, for all the reasons set out in its findings. The panel was particularly concerned about the potential for repetition, given the extensive nature of the conduct and the lack of insight. 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. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and , as such , decided that it would be proportionate , in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provision for a review period. 23 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. 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 some of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Gareth Llewellyn should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Llewellyn is 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 • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Llewellyn involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Llewellyn fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. 24 The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher engaging in conduct towards pupils that was sexual in nature and sexually motivated. 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Llewellyn, 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 makes this observation: “The panel’s findings in relation to Mr Llewellyn included findings of inappropriate communications with students, some of which were sexually motivated and multiple breaches of his safeguarding obligations. The panel had also found that Mr Llewellyn had [REDACTED]. There was therefore a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of Mr Llewellyn’s inappropriate relationships with students.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel had regard to Mr Llewellyn’s letter to the school in advance of his disciplinary hearing, which he did not attend. In that letter he conceded that his actions had been unacceptable, though he denied any sexual motivation and his description of wh at he believed he had done wrong was generalised and limited. There was limited insight into his conduct and no remorse for the impact on the students.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence of full insight and remorse on Mr Llewellyn’s part means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable 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 observes that: 25 “In this case, the panel considered that the public would be gravely concerned to learn that a teacher had conducted himself in the way Mr Llewellyn had. The panel considered that Mr Llewellyn’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Llewellyn’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher using his position to engage in sexually motivated conduct towards pupils in this case and the very negative impact that such a finding is likely to 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Llewellyn himself. The panel records the following: “As noted above, Mr Llewellyn did not demonstrate exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or evidence of having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel did not accept that the incident was out of character on the basis that Mr Llewellyn had been engaging in inappropriate behaviour with multiple students at the same time and over a significant period of time . This could not be described as a “one-off”.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Llewellyn 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 by the panel, as well as its comments concerning the lack of evidence of full insight and remorse. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Llewellyn has made 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. 26 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 that no provision should be made for a review period. In doing so, it has referenced the Advice as follows: “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. This includes: o serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons; For the reasons already set out, the panel found this engaged, for all the reasons set out in its findings. The panel was particularly concerned about the potential for repetition, given the extensive nature of the conduct and the lack of insight.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate response to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that I agree with the panel that allowing a review period would not be sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are very serious nature of the misconduct found, as well as the risk of repetition and jeopardy to the future wellbeing of pupils given the limited evidence of Mr Llewellyn’s insight and remorse identified by the panel. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Gareth Llewellyn is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Llewellyn shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Llewellyn has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. 27 Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 1 October 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.