Mr Jeremy Payne

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 Jeremy Payne

Location teacher worked: Hampshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 15 April 2026 to 16 April 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 Jeremy Payne formerly employed in Hampshire, 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.

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Jeremy Payne: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Jeremy Payne TRA reference: 24958 Date of determination: 16 April 2026 Former employer: Federation of Fryern Infant and Junior Schools, Hampshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 15 and 16 April 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Jeremy Payne. The panel members were Ms Jackie Hutchings (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Ben Greene (teacher panellist) and Miss Yilshane Ali (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Charlotte Belcher of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Wen Yeap of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Payne was present and was represented by Mr Colin Henderson of The Reflective Practice. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 15 January 2026. It was alleged that Mr Payne was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. He was convicted at Poole Magistrates Court on 03 July 2024 for the offence of Driving a Motor Vehicle with Excess Alcohol on 25 April 2024 contrary to s5(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 for which he was sentenced to disqualification from driving for 12 months and ordered to pay a fine of £440.00, a victim surcharge of £176.00 and costs of £85.00. The panel received a signed statement of agreed facts dated 3 March 2026. Mr Payne admitted that he was convicted of the above offence in a British criminal court and that his actions in committing this offence were contrary to the standards of personal and professional conduct expected of a teacher under the Teacher’s Standards and that they risked the safety of members of the public. Mr Payne has not admitted that he has been convicted of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 4 to 14 Section 2: Chronology – pages 15 to 16 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 17 to 19 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 20 to 60 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 61 to 140 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Sentencing Guideline for Excess Alcohol (drive/attempt to drive) (Revised 2017) – pages 141 to 144 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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 TRA did not call any witnesses to give oral evidence to the panel. Mr Payne gave oral evidence to the panel at the first and second stage of the hearing. He also called the following witness in the second stage of the hearing: 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 Payne was employed by the Federation of Fryern Infant and Junior Schools (“the School”) from 1 January 2024 to 11 December 2024 as the Executive Headteacher. On 25 April 2024 Mr Payne was arrested after leaving a pub and was subsequently charged with driving with excess alcohol. He was subsequently suspended by the School. Mr Payne was dismissed on 11 December 2024. On 19 December 2024 a referral was made to the TRA by the School’s Board of Governors. 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: You are guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. You were convicted at Poole Magistrates Court on 03 July 2024 for the offence of Driving a Motor Vehicle with Excess Alcohol on 25 April 2024 contrary to s5(1)(a) Road Traffic Act 1988 for which you were sentenced to disqualification from driving for 12 months and ordered to pay a fine of £440.00, a victim surcharge of £176.00 and costs of £85.00. In the signed statement of agreed facts dated 3 March 2026, Mr Payne admitted that he was convicted of the above offence and that it is a conviction in a British criminal court. The panel was provided with the certificate of conviction confirming that Mr Payne was convicted on 3 July 2024 at Poole Magistrates Court of the Offence to “drive motor 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE vehicle when alcohol level above limit [sic]”. It was further confirmed in Mr Payne’s custody record that this was contrary to section 5(1)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The certificate confirms the offence took place on 25 April 2024 and that Mr Payne was sentenced to: • Disqualification from holding or obtaining a driving licence for 12 months. This would be reduced by three months if Mr Payne satisfactorily completed a course approved by the Secretary of State by 2 February 2025. • A fine of £440.00. • A victim surcharge of £176.00 • Costs to the Crown Prosecution Service of £85.00. Given this was a conviction of a summary offence, the panel was not provided with sentencing remarks. The circumstances of the offence were set out in the signed agreed statement of facts dated 3 March 2026, which stated: “On 25 April 2024, Mr Payne was at the school until approximately 7:25pm having attended a school disco event. On his way home from the school, Mr Payne attended the Gateway pub in Eastleigh and consumed alcohol. At around 8:10pm Mr Payne left the pub to drive home. At around 8:40pm he was pulled over by the police and breathalysed but failed the test. Mr Payne was then arrested for being under the influence of alcohol whilst driving. He was taken to Bournemouth police station where he was detained and breathalysed again and gave a reading of 49mg of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath against a legal limit of 35mg. He was then charged and bailed at 12.30am to attend court.” The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Payne, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Payne was in breach of the following standard: 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o not undermining fundamental British values, including… the rule of law. The panel noted that Mr Payne’s actions were not relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting, because it took place within Mr Payne’s private time after school and outside of the school setting. The offence did not involve children. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in driving with excess alcohol could have had an impact on the safety of members of the public and Mr Payne accepted this within his oral evidence to the panel. The panel noted from Mr Payne’s witness statement that two pints of lager were consumed within approximately 45 minutes, before driving home at 61 miles per hour using cruise control. The panel noted that this posed a danger to members of the public and that it was fortunate that an accident did not occur. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel noted that a member of the public would be concerned if they were aware that a teacher had a conviction for driving with excess alcohol. The panel considered that Mr Payne’s 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 further noted that Mr Payne’s 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, and that the sentence given to Mr Payne was the lowest sentence possible for this offence. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The panel considered that this was a serious driving offence which involved alcohol, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant off