Mr James Wooldridge

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 Wooldridge

Teacher reference number: 8844550

Teacher's date of birth: 20 October 1966

Location teacher worked: East Sussex, south east England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 October 2022

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 Wooldridge, formerly employed in East Sussex, 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 Wooldridge: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 10 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 31 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 34 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr James Wooldridge Teacher ref number: 8844550 Teacher date of birth: 20 October 1966 TRA reference: 18785 Date of determination: 24 October 2022 Former employer: Eastbourne College, East Sussex Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 20 September 2022 to 26 September 2022, to consider the case of Mr James Wooldridge (“Mr Wooldridge”). The panel reconvened the virtual hearing on 20 October 2022 and 24 October 2022 to conclude the case of Mr Wooldridge. The panel members were Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Maurice McBride (lay panellist) and Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Kiera Riddy of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Wooldridge was present and was represented by Ms Althea Brown of Counsel. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 16 May 2022. It was alleged that Mr Wooldridge was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at the Eastbourne College between 1 April 2018 to 20 September 2019: 1) He failed to maintain appropriate boundaries and/or engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A in that he: a. exchanged text messages with her from approximately November 2010; b. encouraged and/or instructed her to save his contact details in her phone under a different name; c. engaged in one or more conversations of a sexual nature with her during the 2011/12 academic year and/or asked her: i. about the extent of her sexual experience in or around September 2011; ii. what age was too old for her in the context of relationships and/or sexual activity in or around September 2011; d. visited and/or met with her 1:1 in her boarding room at the school on one or more occasions during the 2011/12 academic year; e. on or around 2 February 2012: i. invited Pupil A to his home; ii. drove pupil A to his home; iii. instructed Pupil A to duck down in his car to avoid being seen; iv. gave pupil a tour of home and/or took her upstairs; v. discussed and/or showed images of her on a computer at his home; vi. drove her back to school; vii. held her hand in his car; viii. instructed her not to tell anyone about the events of that day; f. on or around 6 February 2012 invited Pupil A to attend a family skiing holiday with him; g. gave and/or received one or more gifts or items with Pupil A, in particular: i. gave her a cupcake with the personalised message ‘cricket 118’ on or around Valentine’s Day 2012; ii. received a letter from her in or around March 2012; iii. lent her The Notebook (a DVD) in or around April 2012; 5 iv. received cufflinks from her with the personalised message ‘cricket’ and ‘118’ in or around June 2012; h. Met her 1:1 for coffee in the local town in or around February 2012; i. Gave her his new mobile number on or around 28 June 2012; j. Met her 1:1 for coffee in the local town on results day on or around 20 August 2012; k. Engaged in an intimate and/or sexual relationship with her following her departure from the school, in particular he: i. kissed her on or around 17 September 2012; ii. discussed feelings of love with her in or around January 2013; iii. discussed sexual activity with her in or around March 2013; iv. met her 1:1 at a hotel in or around March 2013; v. engaged in physical / sexual contact with her on or around 8 April 2013 at his home; vi. engaged in intercourse with her in or around May 2013; 2) Failed to follow management warnings and/or instructions and/or demonstrate insight into previous concerns in respect of your conduct towards Pupil A, in particular: a. his conduct in texting her at 1(a) continued after: i. a meeting on 6 December 2010 at which he agreed not to text her; ii. a letter dated 21 June 2011 instructing him not to text pupils without specific permission to do so; iii. himself submitting a written document to the school in February 2012 in which he undertook never to text Pupil A’s phone; b. his conduct in giving her his mobile number at 1(i) was after: i. a letter dated 21 June 2011 stating that giving pupils personal contact details was contrary to the school’s policy on safer working practice; ii. a Final Written Warning dated 6 March 2012 instructing him to cease all contact with Pupil A and/or to change his mobile number as a measure to prevent contact with Pupil A; c. His conduct as may be found proven at 1g(ii)-(iv) and/or and/or 1(i)-(k) was after: i. submitting a written document to the school in or around February 2012 in which he promised not to have any further contact with Pupil A; ii. receiving a Final Written Warning dated 6 March 2012 and effective until on or around 26 February 2014 stating that all communication with pupil A other than everyday courtesies must cease; d. He failed to report 1(g)(ii) and/or 1(g)(iv) and/or 1(i)-(k) after: 6 i. submitting a written document to the school in or around February 2012 in which he indicated that he would immediately report any attempted contact from Pupil A; ii. receiving a Final Written Warning dated 6 March 2012 and effective until on or around 26 February 2014 stating that he was required to report any attempted contact from Pupil A; 3) Provided misleading and/or inaccurate to the school in or around February 2012 as part of their investigation into his conduct towards Pupil A in that he: a. stated that his text communication with Pupil A had been limited to 6 messages and/or the preceding 3 weeks in time and/or the topic of her invitation to his family skiing holiday when this was not in fact the case; b. stated that he had decided to delete Pupil A from his phone yourself when in fact he had deleted his messages with her as a result of her informing him to do so; 4) His conduct as may be found proven as Allegations 1-2 was sexually motivated. 5) His conduct as may be found proven at Allegations 1(b) and/or 1(e)(iii) and/or 1(e)(viii) and/or 3(a)-(b) was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr Wooldridge admitted to the facts of allegations 1(a), 1(d), 1(e)(i), 1(e)(ii),1(e)(iv) (in respect of the tour around his home only, and not upstairs), 1(e)(v), 1(e)(vi), 1(f), 1(g)(i), 1(g)(ii), 1(g)(iii), 1(g)(iv), 1(h), 1(i), 1(j), 1(k)(ii), 1(k)(v) (only in respect of physical contact, not sexual), 1(k)(vi), 2(a)(i), 2(a)(ii), 2(c)(i), 2(c)(ii), 2(d)(i), 2(d)(ii) and 4 (in respect of allegation 1(k)(vi)) only and not in respect of any of the other allegations). Mr Wooldridge denied the facts of allegations 1(b), 1(c)(i), 1(c)(ii), 1(e)(iii), 1(e)(vii), 1(e)(viii), 1(k)(i), 1(k)(iii), 1(k)(iv), 2(a)(iii), 2(b)(i), 2(b)(ii), 3(a), 3(b) and 5. Mr Wooldridge denied that his conduct in the admitted allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Excluding the Public The panel considered whether to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11 of the Teachers’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012 (the “Regulations”) and paragraph 4.57 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession (the “Procedures”) to exclude the public from part of the hearing. This followed a request by the teacher’s representative that part of the hearing relating to the teacher’s sexual conduct and his health should be heard in private. Teacher’s health The panel determined to exercise its discretion under paragraph 11(3)(b) of the Regulations and the second bullet point of paragraph 4.57 of the Procedures that the public should be excluded from part of the hearing, solely with reference to the teacher’s health. 7 The panel took into account the general rule that hearings should be held in public and that this is desirable to maintain public confidence in the administration of these proceedings and also to maintain confidence in the teaching profession. On this occasion, however, the panel considered that the request for matters relating to the health of the teacher should be heard in private is a reasonable one, given concerns about confidential matters relating to the teacher’s health being placed in the public domain. The panel considered whether that there were any steps short of excluding the public that would serve the purpose of protecting the confidentiality of matters relating to the teacher’s health. The panel did not consider there were any steps in this case. Although there was little reference to the teacher’s health in the papers, the panel took into account the submissions by the teacher’s representative as to why matters relating to the teacher’s health should be excluded from the hearing. The panel had regard to whether the teacher’s request runs contrary to the public interest. The panel is required to announce its decisions in public as to whether the facts have been proven and whether those facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may brin