Mr Jeremy Townend

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 Townend

Teacher reference number: 9543121

Teacher's date of birth: 26 November 1962

Location teacher worked: Ludlow, Shropshire

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 August 2024

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 Jeremy Townend, formerly employed in Ludlow, Shropshire.

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 Jeremy Townend: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Jeremy Townend Teacher ref number: 9543121 Teacher date of birth: 26 November 1962 TRA reference: 21080 Date of determination: 14 August 2024 Former employer: Orleton Church of England Primary School, Shropshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 August 2024 by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Jeremy Townend. The panel members were Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Andrew Harries (lay panellist) and Ms Diana Barry (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Shanie Probert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Townend that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Townend provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted the conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Jack Ashford of Capsticks LLP solicitors, or Mr Townend. The meeting took place in private and was not recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 16 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Townend was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that, on 25 March 2023, at Cambridge Crown Court, he was convicted of the following offences: 1. Five counts of “Indecent assault on a girl under sixteen”, contrary to s14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. The allegation was admitted by the teacher. The teacher also admitted that he was convicted of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications At the outset of the meeting, it was drawn to the panel’s attention that the previous certificate of conviction that had been provided in the bundle contained a typographical error. In particular, the date of the conviction was stated to be 25 March 2023, when it should have been 25 March 2022. As a result, the panel noted that it had been provided with a copy of a corrected certificate of conviction, which had been obtained by the presenting officer from Cambridge Crown Court. The corrected certificate of conviction confirmed that the date of conviction was 25 March 2022. The legal advisor also brought to the panel’s attention that the stem of the allegation was now incorrect, as it had included the date of the conviction as 25 March 2023. The panel therefore considered whether to amend the allegation. The panel noted that it has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. The panel noted that it was clear the teacher had admitted that he was convicted of a relevant offence, namely, five counts of indecent assault on a girl under sixteen, as he was currently serving a custodial sentence. The panel was satisfied that the amendment did not change the nature or scope of the allegations, as it was to amend a typographical error, and there was no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage. Therefore, there was no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. The panel decided to amend the allegation as follows: 5 “It was alleged that Mr Townend was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that, on 25 March 2022, at Cambridge Crown Court, he was convicted of the following offences: 1. Five counts of “Indecent assault on a girl under sixteen”, contrary to s14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956.” Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 5 to 23 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 24 to 26 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 50 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 51 The panel also received an updated notice of meeting dated 16 July 2024. In addition, the panel received the following documents, which were added to the bundle as follows: • A corrected certificate of conviction from Cambridge Crown Court – page 52; and • An email from the presenting officer to the [REDACTED] dated 13 August 2024 – page 53. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, and the additional documents listed above, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Townend on 12 June 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. 6 In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Townend for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Townend was employed as a Teacher by Orleton Church of England Primary School from September 1996 to August 2002. On 25 March 2022, Mr Townend was convicted of five counts of indecent assault on a girl under sixteen, contrary to s14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. On 16 June 2022, Mr Townend was sentenced to 54 months’ imprisonment. On 8 September 2022, Mr Townend was referred to the TRA. 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 a relevant offence in that, on 25 March 2022, at Cambridge Crown Court, you were convicted of the following offences: 1. Five counts of “Indecent assault on a girl under sixteen”, contrary to s14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. Mr Townend admitted that he was convicted of five counts of indecent assault on a girl under sixteen, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, in the statement of agreed facts that he signed on 12 June 2024. The statement of agreed facts also confirmed the following facts: between May 2001 and December 2001, Mr Townend engaged in sexual conduct with Person A, [REDACTED]. Mr Townend was aged 39 or 40. The initial instances of this conduct took place at Person A’s home, and involved Mr Townend kissing and touching Person A in intimate areas over clothing. In December 2001, Mr Townend drove Person A to a secluded place, where he digitally penetrated Person A’s vagina, encouraged Person A to masturbate him, and performed oral sex on Person A. On 25 March 2022, Mr Townend was convicted after trial of five counts of “Indecent assault on a girl under sixteen”, contrary to section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. On 16 June 2022, Mr Townend was sentenced at Cambridge Crown Court to a 54 month custodial sentence, and was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register indefinitely. 7 The panel has seen the corrected certificate of conviction and accepted it as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel has also seen an extract of the police national computer record confirming the conviction. The panel found this allegation proven. Findings as to the 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. The offence was committed by Mr Townend’s conduct prior to the coming into force of the Teachers’ Standards. Therefore, the panel had regard to its knowledge and experience of the teaching standards at that time and considered that teachers would still have been expected to: uphold public trust in the professional and uphold proper standards of conduct at all times, observe proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position in respect of all children, not undermine the rule of law and to always act within the applicable statutory frameworks, and that Mr Townend had breached this in his conduct. The panel did not have sight of the applicable policies relevant to Mr Townend’s teaching position at the time of the offending behaviour, however drawing upon its knowledge of the teaching profession, the panel noted that engaging in an inappropriate relationship with a child and committing a criminal offence in respect of the same, would undoubtedly be contrary to these policies. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. Whilst the panel noted that it did not have sight of any evidence to suggest that Mr Townend had committed his offending behaviour within the school environment, and/or involved pupils that he taught, the offence committed was a serious offence that involved a child. The panel also noted that at the time of the offending behaviour, Mr Townend was working in an education setting as a teacher, and working with young children. The panel noted the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks, in which the Judge stated that the offence had involved “grooming”, “abuse of trust” and “disparity of age”. Therefore, the panel found the behaviour harmful to children in an education setting. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils and/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 Townend’s behaviour in committing the offence would be highly likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Townend was allowed to continue teaching. 8 The panel noted that Mr Townend’s behaviour ultimately led to a lengthy sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed, and which the Advice states is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity with a child. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such offences is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. The panel found the offence to be particularly serious. In particular, the panel noted from the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks that there was a significant age gap of 24 years between Mr Townend and the victim at the time of the offending behaviour. The panel also noted the Judge’s comments, in which he stated that Mr Townend had exploited the victim’s young age, and the fact she was impressionable, and had engineered opportunities for the two of them to be together to engage in sexual activity. The panel also considered the Judge’s comments that Mr Townend had exploited the trust of the victim’s family, by committing indecent assaults on the victim in her own home. The panel also noted that the offending took place on multiple occasions across a prolonged period of time. The panel also took into account that one of the five counts of which Mr Townend was convicted was categorised as a category 1A offence, which is the most serious category, and that the Judge stated in his Sentencing Remarks that this was “because of the grooming, because of the abuse of trust, because of the disparity of age.” The panel also noted that Mr Townend received a significant sentence of imprisonment, and that he was placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register indefinitely. There was no evidence of Mr Townend’s teaching proficiency in the bundle. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Townend’s fitness to be a teacher. 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. 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 to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Townend and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. 9 The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Townend, which involved finding that he was convicted of a relevant offence, namely, five counts of indecent assault on a girl under sixteen, contrary to s14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of other members of the public, given the serious findings of inappropriate relationships with a child. The panel noted that there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Townend had abused his position of trust as a teacher in respect of his own pupils or whilst working in a teaching environment. However, it was found that Mr Townend had abused his position of trust that he held through his relationship with the victim and her family, in order to advance a sexual relationship. The panel concluded that this was also a breach of trust in accordance with the applicable teaching standards and/or policies at that time. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Townend were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Townend was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel did not have sight of any evidence pertaining to Mr Townend’s ability as an educator, and therefore, found that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Townend in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a panel will likely consider a teacher’s behaviour to be incompatible with being a teacher if there is evidence of one or more of the factors that begin on page 15. In the list of such factors, those that were relevant in this case were: • the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are “relevant matters” for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosure; • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; 10 • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving vulnerable pupils) • sexual misconduct, for example, involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE); and • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences, or involved the coercion of another person to act in a way contrary to their own interests. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, taking account of the public interest and the seriousness of the behaviour and the likely harm to the public interest were the teacher be allowed to continue to teach, the panel went on to consider the mitigation offered by the teacher and/or whether there were any mitigating circumstances. There was no evidence that Mr Townend’s actions were not deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Townend was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation and, in fact, the panel found Mr Townend’s actions to be calculated and motivated. The panel did not have sight of any evidence to show that Mr Townend had been previously subject to disciplinary proceedings or warnings. However, the panel also did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate that Mr Townend had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel noted from representations made by the defence in the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks that Mr Townend was previously of “good character”, that “there is absolutely no indication at all that in the last 20 years he has behaved inappropriately”, and that there had “never been any suggestion of misbehaviour” during his teaching career. The panel considered these representations carefully, however, the panel also noted that it did not have sight of any evidence, such as good character statements or references, to support these representations. The panel also noted representations made by the defence in the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks that Mr Townend had expressed a “genuine regret as to his actions” and that he did “recognise the effect that this must have had on others”. However, the panel did not have sight of any evidence to support this. The panel also noted that Mr Townend had pleaded “not guilty” to the offences of which he was convicted. The panel did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate Mr Townend’s level of insight or remorse, or 11 the recognition of the impact of his behaviour on the victim concerned. In particular, the panel had sight of a handwritten and signed letter dated 11 April 2023 from Mr Townend to the TRA, in which Mr Townend had requested that the allegation was heard at a meeting in private. In this letter, Mr Townend referred to the ““alleged” offence”, and the ““alleged” case”, despite Mr Townend having been convicted of the offences and serving a substantial custodial sentence. The panel found that this demonstrated a lack of insight and understanding as to the seriousness of the offence. The panel also did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate whether Mr Townend had engaged in rehabilitation in order to fully recognise and address his offending behaviour. Proportionality The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Townend of prohibition. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are cases involving certain conduct where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These cases include serious sexual misconduct, e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used his professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons, and any sexual misconduct involving a child. The panel found that Mr Townend was responsible for a serious criminal and sexual offence, namely indecent assault on a girl under sixteen, involving a child. The panel noted from the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks that, in the pre-sentence report, Mr Townend’s risk of repetition had been categorised as low. However, the panel had no sight of evidence within the bundle to support this or to demonstrate that Mr Townend had engaged in rehabilitation. The panel also noted that it did not have sight of any evidence to determine Mr Townend’s level of insight or remorse. The panel also noted that the nature of the offending behaviour was so serious, so as to result in Mr Townend being placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register indefinitely. 12 The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Jeremy Townend should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. The panel notes that the behaviour that led to Mr Townend’s conviction occurred prior to the introduction of the Teacher Standards and provides the following comments: “The offence was committed by Mr Townend’s conduct prior to the coming into force of the Teachers’ Standards. Therefore, the panel had regard to its knowledge and experience of the teaching standards at that time and considered that teachers would still have been expected to: uphold public trust in the professional and uphold proper standards of conduct at all times, observe proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position in respect of all children, not undermine the rule of law and to always act within the applicable statutory frameworks, and that Mr Townend had breached this in his conduct.” I concur with this assessment. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Townend involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Townend fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are very serious as they include a relevant conviction on Five counts of “Indecent assault on a girl under sixteen”, contrary to s14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. This conviction resulted in Mr Townend receiving a 54 month custodial sentence. 13 I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of a relevant conviction, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Townend, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel has observed, “Whilst the panel noted that it did not have sight of any evidence to suggest that Mr Townend had committed his offending behaviour within the school environment, and/or involved pupils that he taught, the offence committed was a serious offence that involved a child. The panel also noted that at the time of the offending behaviour, Mr Townend was working in an education setting as a teacher and working with young children. The panel noted the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks, in which the Judge stated that the offence had involved “grooming”, “abuse of trust” and “disparity of age”. Therefore, the panel found the behaviour harmful to children in an education setting.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows, “The panel also noted representations made by the defence in the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks that Mr Townend had expressed a “genuine regret as to his actions” and that he did “recognise the effect that this must have had on others”. However, the panel did not have sight of any evidence to support this. The panel also noted that Mr Townend had pleaded “not guilty” to the offences of which he was convicted. The panel did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate Mr Townend’s level of insight or remorse, or the recognition of the impact of his behaviour on the victim concerned. In particular, the panel had sight of a handwritten and signed letter dated 11 April 2023 from Mr Townend to the TRA, in which Mr Townend had requested that the allegation was heard at a meeting in private. In this letter, Mr Townend referred to the ““alleged” offence”, and the ““alleged” case”, despite Mr Townend having been convicted of the offences and serving a substantial custodial sentence. The panel found that this demonstrated a lack of insight and understanding as to the seriousness of the offence. The panel also did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate whether Mr Townend had engaged in rehabilitation in order to fully recognise and address his offending behaviour.” 14 In my judgement, and noting that the panel also records that in Mr Townend’s pre- sentencing report the risk of repletion was ranked as ‘low’, the lack of evidence of full insight and remorse means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observes that, “There was no evidence of Mr Townend’s teaching proficiency in the bundle. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Townend’s fitness to be a teacher. 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.” I am particularly mindful of the nature of the misconduct found by the panel in this case, which involved a relevant conviction for engaging in sexual activity with a child at a time when Mr Townend was working as a teacher, and the serious negative impact that such a finding may have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of a relevant conviction, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Townend himself. The panel records the following: “The panel did not have sight of any evidence to show that Mr Townend had been previously subject to disciplinary proceedings or warnings. However, the panel also did not have sight of any evidence to demonstrate that Mr Townend had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and had contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel noted from representations made by the defence in the Judge’s Sentencing Remarks that Mr Townend was previously of “good character”, that “there is absolutely no indication at all that in the last 20 years he has behaved inappropriately”, and that there had “never been any suggestion of misbehaviour” during his teaching career. The panel considered these representations carefully, however, the panel also noted that it did not have sight of any evidence, such as good character statements or references, to support these representations.” 15 A prohibition order would prevent Mr Townend from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the very serious nature of Mr Townend’s misconduct, involving sexual activity with a child and what the panel describe as “calculated and motivated” behaviour on his part. I have also placed weight on the panel’s comments concerning the lack of evidence that Mr Townend has attained full insight into or remorse for his actions. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Townend has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. I have considered the panel’s comments: “The Advice indicates that there are cases involving certain conduct where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These cases include serious sexual misconduct, e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used his professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons, and any sexual misconduct involving a child. The panel found that Mr Townend was responsible for a serious criminal and sexual offence, namely indecent assault on a girl under sixteen, involving a child.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the very serious nature of the misconduct found which in my judgment is fundamentally incompatible with working as a teacher, as well as the lack of evidence of true insight or remorse on Mr Townend’s part. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. 16 This means that Mr Jeremy Townend is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Townend shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Townend has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 20 August 2024 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.