Mr James Samways

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 Samways

Teacher reference number: N/A

Teacher's date of birth: 28 February 1999

Location teacher worked: Abingdon-on-Thames, South East England

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 James Samways formerly employed in Abingdon-on-Thames, 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 Samways: 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 5 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 James Samways Teacher ref number: N/A Teacher date of birth: 28 February 1999 TRA reference: 21310 Date of determination: 2 December 2025 Former employer: Our Lady’s Abingdon, Oxfordshire 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 James Samways. 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 Samways that the allegation be considered without a hearing . Mr Samways 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 Emma Dowd , Mr Samways or any representative for Mr Samways. 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 Samways was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 1. On 6 December 2022 at Oxfordshire Magistrates’ Court he was convicted of fraud by false representation contrary to the Fraud Act 2006. Mr Samways admitted allegation 1, as set out in his response to the Notice of Referral Form. 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 4 to 8 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 9 to 20 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 21 to 24 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 25 to 237 Section 5: Court documents – pages 238 to 240 Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 241 to 242 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document the 2020 Procedures. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Samways on 12 March 2025. 5 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 Samways was employed from 1 September 2017 as a part time Boys’ Sports Assistant and co-curricular coordinator at Our Lady’s Abingdon Trustees Limited (‘the School’). Mr Samways was completing his PGCE at the School, but he dropped out of the course in December 2021. Mr Samways was carrying out regulated activity by completing PE teaching, acting as textiles technician and co-curricular coordinator unsupervised. [REDACTED]. On 18 February 2022, Mr Samways resigned. Mr Samways also worked as a ca sual worker for [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] is a sports coaching and holiday childcare company that runs clubs and camps for children aged 4 to 13 years old. [REDACTED] informed Mr Samways that [REDACTED]; he could not work for [REDACTED]. On 23 February 2022, Mr Samways forwarded a letter to [REDACTED] that the School had sent him, which he had changed. The letter the School had sent to Mr Samways confirmed that, despite him no longer being an employee of the School, [REDACTED]. Mr Samways amended this letter before he sent it to [REDACTED] and changed its contents to state that [REDACTED]. On 1 March 2022, Mr Samways was arrested and was subsequently investigated by the police. On 30 November 2022 the matter was referred to the TRA. On 6 December 2022 Mr Samways was convicted at Oxford Magistrates Court of fraud by misrepresentation contrary to the Fraud Act 2006 following a guilty plea. 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 6 December 2022 at Oxfordshire Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of fraud by false representation contrary to the Fraud Act 2006. 6 The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Samways on 12 March 2025, in which he admitted 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. The panel was provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Oxford Magistrates’ Court which detailed that on 6 December 2022 Mr Samways was convicted of fraud by false representation. The panel noted that Mr Samways pleaded guilty to the offence. In respect of the conviction above, Mr Samways was ordered to pay a £600 fine, a £60 surcharge and £85 in costs. 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 allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proved allegation amount 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 Samways, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2 , Mr Samways 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 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. 7 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 Samways’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting. The offence impacted Mr Samways’ role and position of trust as a teacher. The offence involved fraud by Mr Samways misrepresenting the contents of a letter sent to him by the School [REDACTED]. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils and/or members of the public . The panel noted in particular that Mr Samways ’ fraudulent actions in changing the contents of the letter from the School was done with the intent to continue working with children at [REDACTED] at a time when Mr Samways knew that [REDACTED]. The panel considered that Mr Samways therefore placed children at potential risk of harm. The panel noted that Mr Samways admitted in his statement of agreed facts that the offence he was convicted of would be likely to have an impact on the safety or security of pupils or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Samways’ 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 Samways’ behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative that the offence was at the less serious end of the possible spectrum. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving fraud or serious dishonesty, 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 Samways’ 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. 8 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 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 t