Mr Jason Harrison

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 Jason Harrison

Teacher reference number: 1260131

Teacher's date of birth: 25 November 1989

Location teacher worked: Sheffield, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 to 18 June 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 Jason Harrison, formerly employed in Sheffield, Yorkshire and the Humber. 

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 Jason Harrison: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 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 13 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Jason Harrison Teacher ref number: 1260131 Teacher date of birth: 25 November 1989 TRA reference: 18235 Date of determination: 18 June 2025 Former employer: Notre Dame High School, Sheffield Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 and 18 June 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Jason Harrison. The panel members were Mrs Emma Hendry (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Hannah Foster (teacher panellist) and Mr Alan Wells (former teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nicholas West of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Harrison 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 18 March 2025. It was alleged that Mr Harrison was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while working as a teacher at Notre Dame High School (“the School”): 1. On or around 28 February 2019 he: a. touched and/or attempted to touch Pupil A’s legs and/or bottom; b. caused, or allowed, Pupil A to undo his clothing; c. caused, or allowed, Pupil A to put his penis in her mouth; d. encouraged Pupil A to put his penis in her mouth by making one or more comments to the effect of: i. asking her to “suck it”; ii. “come on” iii. “it will only be ten seconds”; 2. His conduct as may be found proven: a. at 1a, 1c and/or 1d was conduct of a sexual nature; b. at 1a to 1d above was sexually motivated. 3. On or after 28 February 2019, he failed, either promptly or at all, to make the School aware that an incident of a sexual nature had occurred involving Pupil A. Mr Harrison denied the allegations, as set out in the response to the notice of hearing dated 13 January 2023. 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 5 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 21 5 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 22 to 35 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 36 to 373 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 374 to 378 The panel also received an addendum to the bundle which included: Section 1: Key service documents – pages 2 to 27 Section 2: CMH application and decision – pages 28 to 47 In addition, the panel received an anonymised pupil list and a video recording of Pupil A’s achieving best evidence (ABE) interview. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents provided, in advance of the hearing and watched the video recording of Pupil A’s ABE interview. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession April 2018, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] 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 Harrison joined the School in September 2015. He was appointed as a [REDACTED] teacher in September 2016. Pupil A commenced [REDACTED] in September [REDACTED]. On 28 February 2019, Pupil A went to see Mr Harrison in his classroom to discuss some work at lunchtime. An incident of a sexual nature allegedly occurred. On 1 March 2019, friends of Pupil A reported concerns about the incident. They reported that Mr Harrison exposed his penis to Pupil A and forced her to have oral sex. Pupil A spoke to the headteacher and raised concerns about Mr Harrison’s family; she went on to 6 say that she had been joking with her friends and that it had gone too far. Pupil A disclosed to her mother that what she had told her friends was true. Mr Harrison was arrested on 3 March 2019. Pupil A and Mr Harrison were interviewed by police on 4 March 2019. Mr Harrison resigned from his role at the School in August 2019. In August 2021, Mr Harrison was tried and acquitted of a criminal offence relating to the incident on 28 February 2019. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel made the following findings of fact for these reasons: 1. On or around 28 February 2019 you: a. touched and/or attempted to touch Pupil A’s legs and/or bottom; The panel considered the video recording and written transcript of Pupil A’s interview with the police on 4 March 2019, when she stated, “he started touching up my legs, my bum and stuff”, “he was touching my bum” and “it was under my skirt but over my tights”. When Pupil A was asked where else Mr Harrison had touched her, she replied, “it were mainly my bum and stuff”. The panel was conscious that Pupil A’s evidence is hearsay evidence and that it did not have an opportunity to test her evidence through questioning. The panel did watch the video recording of Pupil A’s evidence and considered that her responses were straightforward, matter of fact and believable. The panel considered that the version of events that Pupil A provided was plausible and consistent and the panel did not find any evidence of embellishment. The panel further noted Pupil A’s witness statement produced for these proceedings which confirmed that that she was truthful during her police interview to the best of her ability. The panel did note that Pupil A stated that, whilst she was providing evidence to the police to support their investigation, she accepted that she also felt that she wanted to protect Mr Harrison. The panel considered the written transcript of Mr Harrison’s police interview dated 4 March 2019 where he stated, “I was only touching her body because I was trying to like…”, and when asked if his hands were touching Pupil A’s tights, he responded “Probably yeah. Not in an arousing way, just in a way”. Mr Harrison was asked directly if any of his DNA will be on Pupil A’s tights, around the bottom area and he responded, “Could be around her bottom area yeah”. 7 Taking into account the available evidence, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probability that Mr Harrison did touch Pupil A’s legs and bottom and therefore allegation 1(a) was proven. b. caused, or allowed, Pupil A to undo your clothing; The panel noted the witness statement of Pupil A which stated, “I can remember that Mr Harrison was wearing a belt and his trousers were fastened…I wish it to be known that I did not take his penis out of his trousers. He did…”. The panel considered this was consistent with Pupil A’s contemporaneous account in the police interview on 4 March 2019 when she stated, “he got his penis out”. When Pupil A was asked if she said Mr Harrison has got his penis out, she responded, “Yeah”. Pupil A’s evidence during the criminal proceedings was also consistent when she denied unzipping Mr Harrison’s trousers and denied pulling his penis out. The panel considered the written transcript of Mr Harrison’s police interview dated 4 March 2019 where he stated, “before I know it she’s unzipped my fly on my trousers, she popped her bag on the floor and quickly put her mouth around my penis”. Mr Harrison was asked if there was anything stopping him from just moving away as “she’s not a big girl is she?” and he accepted “she’s not”. The panel noted that Mr Harrison accepted he was wearing tight boxer shorts, trousers with a button and zip and a belt. The panel considered that, on the balance of probabilities, Pupil A’s version of events was more believable and plausible and that Mr Harrison would have more likely than not undone his own clothing. The panel did not consider that Mr Harrison caused or allowed Pupil A to undo his clothing and therefore did not find allegation 1(b) proven. c. caused, or allowed, Pupil A to put your penis in her mouth; The panel considered the video recording and written transcript of Pupil A’s video interview with the police on 4 March 2019, when she stated, “he got his penis out and then he asked me to suck it and I said no I can’t you’re my teacher and he was like saying, come on and stuff like that. He said it will only be 10 seconds”. When Pupil A was asked what she said to that, she replied, “Nothing. So I did it”. The panel was conscious that Pupil A’s evidence is hearsay evidence but considered it could be given appropriate weight as the version of events that Pupil A provided was plausible and consistent. During the criminal proceedings, the panel noted Pupil A provided evidence that Mr Harrison “was touching me up, asked me to get on my knees and suck his willy”. The panel further noted Pupil A’s witness statement which stated, “his penis only touched me where Mr Harrison forced it to”. The panel considered the written transcript of Mr Harrison’s police interview dated 4 March 2019 where he stated, Pupil A “quickly put her mouth around my penis”. The panel 8 considered that this version of events was unlikely to have happened, following its earlier findings of fact that Mr Harrison was more likely to have undone his own clothing and taken his penis out of h