Mr James Coltella

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 James Coltella

Location teacher worked: Tonbridge, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 12 to 21 January 2026

Outcome type: No order made

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 James Coltella formerly employed in Tonbridge, South 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.

Mr James Coltella: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 8 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 44 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 49 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr James Coltella TRA reference: 20540 Date of determination: 21 January 2026 Former employer: Tonbridge School, Tonbridge Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened from 12 January 2026 to 21 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr James Coltella The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Miss Yilshane Ali (lay panellist) and Mr David Loveless (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Coltella was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 27 October 2025. It was alleged that Mr Coltella was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while employed as a teacher at Tonbridge School, High Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 he: 1. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A in that: a. On one or more occasion he touched Pupil A’s knee and/or shoulder; b. On one or more occasion he grabbed and/or stroked Pupil A’s hand; c. On one or more occasion he hugged or attempted to hug Pupil A; d. On one or more occasion he asked Pupil A to hug him e. He described his relationship with Pupil A as a “friendship” or words to that effect; f. He said to Pupil A “I can’t wait till we are out of this place” or words to that effect; g. He viewed and/or attempted to view Pupil A’s social media account; h. He proposed going to a restaurant with Pupil A. 2. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil B in that: a. He said to Pupil B “I love you and I love the group” or words to that effect; b. He said to Pupil B and /or other pupils “You can’t say anything about what happens in this classroom to other people” or words to that effect; c. On one or more occasions he touched and/or brushed Pupil B’s leg; d. On one or more occasions he touched and/or grabbed Pupil B’s shoulder and/or knee. 3. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil C in that: a. He obtained Pupil C’s home address when there was no professional reason to do so; b. He poked Pupil C and/or said words to the effect of “Shame on you for making me feel grumpy yesterday”. 5 4. He instructed one or more pupils to recite inappropriate song lyrics to him or to other pupils. 5. On one or more occasions he sought and/or held non-classroom meetings (as set out in Schedule 2) alone with: a. Pupil A; b. Pupil B. 6. By his conduct as may be proven at any or all of allegations 1 – 5, he failed to follow management advice given to him in respect of his conduct with pupils. Mr Coltella was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while employed as a teacher at Skinners’ School, St Johns Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN4 9PG he: 7. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil E in that: a. He made the comments and/or had discussions with Pupil E as set out in Schedule 1 or words to that effect; b. He encouraged Pupil E to keep their conversations a secret; c. On one or more occasions, he rested one or more hands on Pupil E’s knees; d. On one or more occasions he hugged Pupil E; 8. On one or more occasions he sought and/or held non-classroom meetings (as set out in Schedule 2) with Pupil E. 9. His conduct as may be proven at any or all of allegations 1 – 8 was sexually motivated. 10. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 7b was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Schedule 1 1. He told Pupil E that he wished that they were no longer at school so that he and Pupil E could go for a drink. 2. He asked Pupil E if they were attracted to him. 3. He told Pupil E that they were special and/or he had a special connection that he had not had with other pupils. 6 4. He told Pupil E that they were “good looking”. 5. He told Pupil E that they did not need to get back into school uniform for him after they had gone to the gym. Schedule 2 Pupil Incident i. A Witness statement dated 3 May 2025, paragraphs 26 – 34 ii. B Witness statement dated 21 March 2025, paragraph 13 and paragraph 27 iii. E Witness statement dated 24 March 2025. Paragraphs 13 – 14 and [REDACTED] second bullet point. In the absence of Mr Coltella, the allegations were not admitted, and there was no admission that Mr Coltella was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Following the conclusion of the TRA’s case, the allegations were amended as set out below. Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 remained unchanged. It was alleged that Mr Coltella was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while employed as a teacher at Skinners’ School, St Johns Road, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, TN4 9PG and/or Tonbridge School, High Street, Tonbridge, Kent, TN9 he: 1. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A in that: a. On one or more occasion he touched Pupil A’s knee and/or shoulder; b. On one or more occasion he grabbed and/or stroked Pupil A’s hand; c. On one or more occasion he hugged or attempted to hug Pupil A; d. On one or more occasion he asked Pupil A to hug him e. He described his relationship with Pupil A as a “friendship” or words to that effect; f. He said to Pupil A “I can’t wait till we are out of this place” or words to that effect; g. He viewed and/or attempted to view Pupil A’s social media account; h. He proposed going to a restaurant with Pupil A. 7 2. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil B in that: a. He said to Pupil B “I love you and I love the group” or words to that effect; b. He said to Pupil B and /or other pupils “You can’t say anything about what happens in this classroom to other people” or words to that effect; c. On one or more occasions he touched and/or brushed Pupil B’s leg; d. On one or more occasions he touched and/or grabbed Pupil B’s shoulder and/or knee. 3. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil C in that: a. He obtained Pupil C’s home address when there was no professional reason to do so; b. He poked Pupil C and/or said words to the effect of “Shame on you for making me feel grumpy yesterday”. 4. He instructed one or more pupils to recite inappropriate song lyrics to him or to other pupils. 5. On one or more occasions he sought and/or held meetings (as set out in Schedule 2) alone with: a. Pupil A; b. Pupil B. 6. By his conduct as may be proven at any or all of allegations 1 – 5, he failed to follow management advice given to him in respect of his conduct with pupils. 7. Failed to maintain professional boundaries with Pupil E in that: a. He made the comments and/or had discussions with Pupil E as set out in Schedule 1 or words to that effect; b. He encouraged Pupil E to keep their conversations a secret; c. On one or more occasions, he rested one or more hands on Pupil E’s knees; d. On one or more occasions he hugged Pupil E; 8. On one or more occasions he sought and/or held non-classroom meetings (as set out in Schedule 2) with Pupil E. 8 9. His conduct as may be proven at any or all of allegations 1 – 8 was sexually motivated. 10. His conduct as may be found proven at allegation 7b was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 9 to 11 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 12 to 38 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 38 to 107 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents exhibited to witness statements – pages 108 to 680 Section 5: Other Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 681 to 704 Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 705 to 734 In addition, the panel was provided with the following: A bundle of documents relevant to service/ proceeding in absence pages 1 to 13 A case management decision following a case management hearing held on 4 September 2025. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents referred to above. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness D – [REDACTED]; 9 Pupil E; Witness F - [REDACTED]; Pupil A; Pupil C; and Pupil B. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 1 September 2011, Mr Coltella was employed at Skinners’ School as a teacher of English. He became the head of English, was subsequently appointed as Assistant Head of Sixth Form and became part of Skinne