Mr Jordan Emms

Teacher's name: Mr Jordan Emms

Teacher reference number: 0837064

Teacher's date of birth: 25 June 1986

Location teacher worked: Cumbria, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 April 2026

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 Jordan Emms formerly employed in Cumbria, North West 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-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Mr Jordan Emms: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 2 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 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 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Jordan Emms Teacher ref number: 0837064 Teacher date of birth: 25 June 1986 TRA reference: 23482 Date of determination: 10 April 2026 Former employer: Thwaites Primary School, Cumberland Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 10 April 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Jordan Emms. The panel members were Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Melissa West (teacher panellist) and Dr Louise Wallace (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons 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 Emms that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Emms 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 Cher Lyne Peh, or Mr Emms. The meeting took place in private and was not recorded. 4 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 12 December 2025. It was alleged that Mr Emms was guilty of having been convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence, in that: 1. Assault a girl under 13 by touching 2. Cause/incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration. Summary of Evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of Referral and Notice of Meeting – pages 3a to 17 Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and presenting officer representations – pages 18 to 25 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 26 to 117 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 118 to 119 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 Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Emms on 14 October 2025. Decision and Reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Emms for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be 5 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE 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 Emms was employed as a teacher at Thwaites Primary School (“the School”) from 1 July 2019. He also had responsibilities as the acting headteacher between March 2020 and April 2023. On or around 1 March 2022, Mr Emms was arrested by the police, and he was suspended from the School on 3 March 2022. Mr Emms resigned from his position at the School on 18 October 2023 with his notice expiring on 31 December 2023. He was subsequently dismissed on 15 December 2023. 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: Mr Emms was guilty of having been convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence, in that: 1. Assault a girl under 13 by touching 2. Cause/incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration. In the statement of agreed facts, Mr Emms admitted that he was convicted of the above offences at Preston Crown Court on or around 25 November 2024. He admitted that he was sentenced on 16 December 2024 to 3 years’ imprisonment, in respect of count 1, and 3 years’ imprisonment in respect of court 2, to be served concurrently. He admitted that he was also required to sign the sex offenders’ register and to pay a statutory surcharge of £170. The court also made a sexual harm prevention order to remain in force for 7 years. The panel was provided with the certificate of conviction confirming that, on 25 November 2024, Mr Emms was tried and convicted on indictment of “assault a girl under 13 by touching” and “cause/incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration”. The certificate confirmed Mr Emms was sentenced as referred to above. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel was also provided with the sentencing remarks. These stated that “it has also been tragic for [Person A], and this was, at the end of the day, a serious abuse of trust and not just a serious abuse of trust but also, [REDACTED]” 6 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE 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 Emms in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Emms 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 treating pupils with dignity, 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 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 Emms’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting given that he was convicted of sexual offences against a child under the age of 13. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would be likely to have had an impact on the safety and security of the child who was the victim of his offending. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Emms’ behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the nature of the conviction in this case. The panel noted that Mr Emms’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. 7 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel noted that Mr Emms had previously been of positive good character as the Judge referred to in his sentencing remarks. The Judge referred to Mr Emms as having been “clearly well thought of by many people” some of whom had provided character references for him for the purpose of the criminal trial. The panel had not seen those character references, so was unable to take these into account. The panel also had regard to the positive references Mr Emms had received when he was appointed to his role at the School. The panel noted that Mr Emms denied the allegations, and drew no inference given his right to defend himself. Nevertheless, the panel noted there was no evidence as to any mitigating circumstances, as to any insight he has subsequently developed (other than [REDACTED] acknowledging on his behalf that “a conviction of this nature will prohibit him from teaching in the future”). There was no evidence of any rehabilitation. Given the convictions in this case, the panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Emms’ ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences 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 should be made, the panel had to consider whethe