Mr James Middleditch

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 Middleditch

Teacher reference number: 1789776

Teacher's date of birth: 14 November 1995

Location teacher worked: Suffolk, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 and 15 April 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 James Middleditch, formerly employed in Suffolk, East of England.

Mr James Middleditch: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 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: Mr James Middleditch Teacher ref number: 1789776 Teacher date of birth: 14 November 1995 TRA reference: 23254 Date of determination: 15 April 2025 Former employer: Sir John Leman High School, Suffolk Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 and 15 April 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr James Middleditch. The panel members were Ms Nicola Hartley (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist) and Mr Francis Murphy (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr John Morrison of counsel instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Middleditch was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 21 January 2025 by email and dated 28 March 2025 by post. It was alleged that Mr James Middleditch was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. In N ovember 2022, during the process of applying for employment as a Teacher of Music, at Sir John Leman High School (“the School”): a) the did not include his previous history at Archbishop Sancroft High School; b) he did not include the reason for leaving employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School; c) on the ‘Criminal records self-declaration form’ he marked ‘No’ to the question ‘Do the police or children’s social care have your name and/or information on file for any reason when he knew that was not the case. 2. His conduct at paragraph 1a and/or 1b and/or 1c: a) demonstrated a lack of integrity, and/or b) was dishonest. No admissions were made as to the alleged facts. Unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute were not admitted. 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 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 5 to 12 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 13 to 20 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 21 to 181 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 182 to 184 5 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Skeleton argument on behalf of the TRA – pages 1 to 6 • Appendices A and B – pages 1 to 103 • Service bundle – pages 1 to 42 • Correspondence with teacher – pages 1 to 2 • Letter to teacher – page 1 The panel members confirmed that they had read all documents in advance of the hearing. 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 witness called by the presenting officer: Witness A, [REDACTED] at Sir John Leman High School. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel has carefully considered this case and reached a decision. Mr James Middleditch was employed as a Teacher of Music at Sir John Leman High School from December 2022. It was alleged that his appointment followed the submission of a written application dated 17 November 2022. In around March 2023, a new member of staff was being shown around the School premises as part of an organised tour before she began her role at the School. During this tour, the new member of staff passed Mr Middleditch. When she saw him, she expressed surprise to the person escorting her that Mr Middleditch was working at the School as she was aware that he had previously been dismissed from Archbishop Sancroft High School, where she had previously worked. This matter subsequently came to the attention of Witness A. As a result of enquiries made by Witness A, it was established that Mr Middleditch had previously been employed at Archbishop Sancroft High School and dismissed from that employment. However, there was no reference in his application form to him having been employed at that school. 6 On 30 March 2023, Witness A held a suspension meeting with Mr Middleditch. During the course of this meeting, Mr Middleditch wrote a letter of resignation. During the course of this hearing, reference has been made to a Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) investigation that was conducted in 2020 in relation to Mr Middleditch at the time of his employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School. The TRA’s case was that, in the context of the LADO investigation, there was involvement with the police and children’s social services. There was no allegation before this panel concerning any alleged conduct of Mr Middleditch which was the subject of the LADO investigation. The allegations against Mr Middleditch were confined to information provided or not provided by him in his application for employment at the School. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that you are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. In November 2022, during the process of applying for employment as a Teacher of Music, at Sir John Leman High School (“the School”): a) you did not include your previous history at Archbishop Sancroft High School; The panel was provided with written evidence of Mr Middleditch’s employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School as a Teacher of Music between 1 September 2021 and 24 February 2022. The panel reviewed Mr Middleditch’s application for employment at the School dated 17 November 2022. The panel noted that section 3 of the form stated, ‘Please list a full and unbroken record of your employment and other activities, either paid or unpaid’. The form completed by Mr Middleditch contained no reference to his employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School. Instead, Mr Middleditch stated on the form that between the dates ‘2021/2022 to present’ he had worked as a freelance musician. Mr Middleditch has asserted in email correspondence that he verbally informed the interviewing panel during his interview of his previous employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School. However, the panel questioned Witness A about this. Witness A said that she had reviewed the notes of Mr Middleditch’s interview and found there was no such record. Additionally, Witness A referred to handwritten notes on the application form, which was included in the bundle, and noted a previous non-school employer (also omitted from the employment history), which Witness A said was required as a second referee. The panel was satisfied that had Mr Middleditch declared his previous employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School during his interview, it is more likely that 7 this would have been recorded and used as a second referee. Witness A also said during her evidence that she had spoken to a member of the interviewing panel, Individual B, and he had no recollection of Mr Middleditch making any reference to his employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School. The panel found allegation 1(a) proved. b) you did not include the reason for leaving employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School; The panel noted that section 3 of the form required each applicant to provide the reason for leaving previous employment. As Mr Middleditch did not declare his previous employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School, it followed that he did not declare the reason for leaving that employment. The panel reviewed a letter dated 24 February 2022 from the Executive Headteacher of Archbishop Sancroft High School to Mr Middleditch. This letter confirmed the outcome of his final probationary review meeting on 22 February 2022. The letter referred to a number of specific issues and stated: ‘These issues surrounded your conduct and behaviour outside of school which raises concerns with regards to your professionalism and understanding of the Teachers Standards. As a Trust we have strict codes of conduct which we expect all staff to adhere to. We must also consider a transfer of risk of these behaviours occurring within school. As teaching professionals, we must ensure the best possible education and wellbeing for the children we teach.’ This was information concerning the termination of Mr Middleditch’s employment at Archbishop Sancroft High School which should have been included in his application for employment at the School. The panel found allegation 1(b) proved. c) on the ‘Criminal records self-declaration form’ you marked ‘No’ to the question ‘Do the police or children’s social care have your name and/or information on file for any reason?’, when you knew this was not the case. The panel noted that the application for employment at the School had a section headed, ‘Criminal records self-declaration form’ which contained a number of questions about convictions, cautions and inclusion in the Children’s barred list. The final question in the section asked, ‘Do the police or children’s social care have your name and/or information on file for any reason?’ The panel noted that ‘no’ was written on the application form in response to this question and all of the other ques