Mr Julian Barker

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 Julian Barker

Teacher reference number: 1841690

Teacher's date of birth: 16 October 1974

Location teacher worked: Bolton, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 March 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 Julian Barker, formerly employed in Bolton, North West England.

Mr Julian Barker: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Julian Barker Teacher ref number: 1841690 Teacher date of birth: 16 October 1974 TRA reference: 23236 Date of determination: 17 March 2025 Former employer: Pike Lane Primary School, Bolton Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 17 March 2025, to consider the case of Mr Julian Barker. The panel members were Mr Neil Hilman (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Lynsey Draycott (teacher panellist) and Ms Wendy Shannon (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Rachel Phillips of Blake Morgan LLP. 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 Barker that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Barker provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, or Mr Barker. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 10 March 2025. It was alleged that Mr Barker was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a supply teacher at Pikes Lane Primary School: 1. He engaged in inappropriate online behaviour that was: a. sexual in nature; b. centred around children. 2. His conduct as described at paragraph 1 was sexually motivated. It was also alleged that Mr Barker was convicted of a relevant offence, namely: 3. On 1 November 2023 at Manchester City Magistrates’ Court he was convicted of publishing an obscene article on 12 April 2023, namely electronic communication, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Mr Barker admitted the facts of the allegations and that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and that the offence for which he was convicted amounted to a conviction for a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section A: Pleadings – pages 4 to 17 Section B: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 03 Section C: Teacher documents – pages 105 to 113 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Barker on 21 February 2025. Decision and reasons 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 Barker for the allegations 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. The panel proceeded to consider the case carefully, having read all of the documents, and reached a decision. It accepted the legal advice provided. On 3 April 2023, Mr Barker accessed and participated in online chat rooms and messaging platforms such as Skype messenger and ChatIW under the usernames “Funchats” and “Martindad”. In the course of doing so, Mr Barker engaged in online communication with a profile named [REDACTED] who purported to be an adult with access to children but was in fact an undercover police officer. The communication became sexual in its content, including Mr Barker describing on one occasion engaging in sexual activity [REDACTED]. At the material time, Mr Barker was working as a supply teacher at Pikes Lane Primary School (“the School”) via Vision for Education, a supply agency. As a result of his conduct, Mr Barker was arrested by Greater Manchester Police (“the Police”) on 12 April 2023. The Police seized Mr Barker’s mobile phone and found additional conversations of a similar nature with other individuals online. It was found that Mr Barker, under the username “Funchats”, had exchanged sexualised messages [REDACTED] including the other user removing the child’s clothing, appearing before the child naked and using their tongue to ‘tickle’ the child. Following his arrest, Mr Barker was charged with two offences, as follows: a) On 03/04/2023 at Bury published an obscene article, namely electronic communication contrary to section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. b) On 12/04/2023 at Bury published an obscene article, namely electronic communication contrary to section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. 6 The first of the two offences was withdrawn by the Crown Prosecution Service. On 1 November 2023, Mr Barker pleaded guilty to the remaining offence and was convicted at Manchester City Magistrates’ Court. He was sentenced to a Community Order with a requirement of 60 hours unpaid work and rehabilitation activity and was ordered to pay £85.00 in prosecution costs and £114.00 victim surcharge. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You engaged in inappropriate online behaviour that was: a. sexual in nature; b. centred around children. The panel was presented with a statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Barker, in which this allegation was admitted. The panel was also presented with the messages sent by Mr Barker which include sexualised references to children and images of a child. On considering allegation 1a, the panel took into account the definition for conduct of a sexual nature, by reference to the definition of ‘sexual’ found within the Sexual Offences Act 2003. In doing so, the panel considered that the language used in the messages, such as “Rubbing my cock slowly on her bum”, was inherently sexual. In respect of allegation 1b, the panel noted that within the messages exchanged online, Mr Barker [REDACTED] shared images of a child which he had obtained from a website [REDACTED]. In all the circumstances, the panel was satisfied that Mr Barker had engaged in inappropriate online behaviour that was centred around children. The panel was satisfied that Mr Barker’s admissions were unequivocal and were consistent with the surrounding evidence in the bundle. Accordingly, the panel found this allegation proven in full. 7 2. Your conduct as described at paragraph 1 was sexually motivated. The panel took into account the relevant legal guidance which stated that sexual motivation means conduct that was undertaken either in pursuit of a future sexual relationship or in the pursuit of sexual gratification.1 The panel noted that during his police interview, Mr Barker described himself as being ‘aroused’ during the online chats and that he would masturbate whilst engaging in these conversations. In light of this, the panel was satisfied that Mr Barker’s actions were for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification. In addition, in the statement of agreed facts, Mr Barker admitted that his conduct was sexually motivated. The panel was satisfied that Mr Barker’s admissions were unequivocal and were consistent with the surrounding evidence in the bundle. Accordingly, the panel found allegation 2 proved. 3. On 1 November 2023 at Manchester City Magistrates’ Court you were convicted of publishing an obscene article on 12 April 2023, namely electronic communication, contrary to Section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. The panel was presented with an extract from Manchester City Magistrates’ Court confirming that Mr Barker was convicted on 1 November 2023 of the offence particularised in allegation 3. The panel accepted the court extract as confirmation that Mr Barker had been convicted on 1 November 2023 of publishing an obscene article. In light of this as well as Mr Barker’s admission, the panel found allegation 3 proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document, Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. 1 Basson v General Medical Council [2018] EWHC 505 (Admin) 8 The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Barker in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Barker 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… • 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, whilst the allegations took place outside the education setting, the nature of the alleged conduct connects directly to the conduct expected of those within the teaching profession and the standards which they are expected to uphold. The allegations as found proved revolved around sexual communication online, including references to engaging in sexual activity with a child. The panel felt that such behaviour was far outside the scope of what is expected of a person who is within a teaching role. The panel was cognisant of the function of the regulator with regard to those within the teaching profession and was mindful that there may be limits to regulatory oversight of private conduct. However, given the significance of these findings, and the fact that the behaviour concerned sexualised communication, which was centred around children, the panel was satisfied that the conduct directly related to the teaching environment. The panel noted it was of particular significance that Mr Barker’s conduct occurred at the time that he was a supply teacher within a primary school. It therefore determined that Mr Barker’s actions could directly impact upon his teaching role. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Barker amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel considered that Mr Barker was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Barker’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would likely have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public’s perception. The panel considered that Mr Barker’s conduct ran counter to what should be at the very core of the practice of a teacher with a duty of care towards children. 9 The panel therefore found that Mr Barker’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Having found the facts of the allegations proved, the panel considered that Mr Barker’s conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found allegation 3 proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of that allegation 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Barker in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, he 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… • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel also considered whether Mr Barker’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 onwards of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offences of sexual activity and sexual communication were relevant. The panel considered that publishing an obscene article which referenced children in a sexual manner, is a relevant offence in the circumstances, and directly relates to Mr Barker’s ongoing suitability to teach. Furthermore, the panel considered that whilst Mr Barker had not physically engaged in sexual activity, his communication contained sexualised references to children and on one occasion referred to him engaging in sexual activity with a child. The panel therefore considered that Mr Barker’s conduct was associated with the offences of sexual activity and sexual communication relating to children. The panel noted that whilst Mr Barker’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment, the actions which culminated in Mr Barker’s conviction would be likely to 10 significantly affect the public confidence in the teaching profession if the teacher were allowed to continue teaching. The panel also considered that the conduct was contrary to the standards of personal and professional conduct expected of a teacher, with reference to the Teachers’ Standards. The panel did not consider there to be any relevant mitigating circumstances in relation to the commission of these offences. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Barker’s fitness to be a teacher. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary, thereby reaffirming 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 unacceptable professional conduct, conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and 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 whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. 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. 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 protection of other members of the public; • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Barker and the circumstances surrounding his conviction, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Barker were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The public, rightly, 11 expect teachers to act appropriately and professionally at all times. These are fundamental tenets of the profession. In that context, the panel considered Mr Barker’s actions damaged public confidence in him, as a professional, and the profession as a whole. 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 Barker was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Barker in the profession. Whilst no doubt had been cast upon Mr Barker’s proficiency as a teacher, the panel considered that there was no evidence available as to his prior practice as an educator, and more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that Barker has made an exceptional contribution to the profession. In particular, Mr Barker had not presented any character references or testimonials and had indicated that he is not presently working within the profession. 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, even outside of teaching. In those circumstances, the panel did not consider there was a strong public interest in retaining Mr Barker in the profession. Notwithstanding the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Barker. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • 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’; • abuse of position or trust; • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature…; 12 • failure to act on evidence that indicated a child’s welfare may have been at risk e.g. failed to notify the designated safeguarding lead and/or make a referral to children’s social care, the police or other relevant agencies when abuse, neglect and/or harmful cultural practices were identified; • 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); • a deep-seated attitude that leads to harmful behaviour. Even though some of the behaviours found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The panel considered that the following mitigating factors are present in this case: • Mr Barker made full admissions to the allegation against him. • Mr Barker pleaded guilty in the criminal proceedings. • Mr Barker has undertaken therapy treatment and has partaken in an educational programme. Weighed against this, the aggravating features in this case included that: • Mr Barker’s actions were pre-meditated, deliberate and repeated. • Mr Barker’s conduct was over a prolonged period, the frequency of which was increasing over time. Mr Barker’s conduct came to an end, not of his own volition, but due to an undercover intelligence gathering operation by the police. • Mr Barker deliberately assumed false identities with the intention of “hooking” the other users in. • There was no evidence that Mr Barker was acting under extreme duress. • Mr Barker’s actions amounted to a clear breach of the Teachers' Standards and raised serious public and child protection concerns. • Mr Barker has been convicted of and sentenced for a serious offence which centred around children. • Mr Barker’s conduct included sexualised communication where he himself is depicted as engaging in sexual activity with a child, as well as encouraging others to engage in such activity. 13 • Mr Barker was in a position of trust and responsibility as a teacher. He had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of him in that regard. • Whilst Mr Barker has undertaken therapy, the panel noted that his therapist has been unable to comment upon the likelihood of relapse. 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 was sufficient, in this case, would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Barker of prohibition. Mr Barker’s actions were fundamentally incompatible with his being a teacher, and as such, the panel considered that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. This was because the public interest considerations present, as identified above, were particularly strong and outweighed the interests of Mr Barker. In arriving at this conclusion, the panel had regard to the fact that Mr Barker had participated in multiple online chat rooms and had engaged in conversation which included sexualised references to children, over a prolonged period. The panel therefore considered this was not a momentary lapse of judgement and amounted to a serious breach of the Teachers' Standards. Additionally, when balancing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances present in this case, its overall seriousness called for a higher regulatory sanction to protect the wider public interest factors. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. 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 certain types of cases where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These behaviours include: 14 • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated…; • any sexual misconduct involving a child. In this case, Mr Barker engaged in online communications which were sexually motivated and made reference to engaging in sexual activity with a young child. The panel considered that these behaviours were on par with the specific circumstances listed in the Advice that would mitigate against a review period. The panel considered that whilst Mr Barker had shown a level of insight into his actions, he did not engage with the severity of his actions or the impact they had on the wider profession of teaching. On the face of the evidence before it, the panel noted that whilst Mr Barker had engaged with his community order requirements, there is a lack of evidence that there has been sustained rehabilitation. In the absence of any recent evidence provided by Mr Barker, the panel considered that there was insufficient information before it as to the current measures Mr Barker has put in place to prevent any reoccurrence. In addition, the panel considered that in the absence of any professional opinion as to the prevention of relapse, it was not satisfied that a review period would be appropriate in all the circumstances. The public interest considerations that Mr Barker’s conduct give rise to were such that this was necessary, appropriate and proportionate. Having regard to the nature of Mr Barker’s actions, which led to his conviction, the panel determined that Mr Barker’s actions are fundamentally incompatible with his being a teacher. 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 unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and/or a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Julian Barker should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. 15 In particular, the panel has found that Mr Barker is 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… • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Barker 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 Barker fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher engaging in sexualised online behaviour centred on children as well as receiving a criminal conviction for publishing an obscene article. 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute and 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 Barker, 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 records the following observation: “In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Barker and the circumstances surrounding his conviction, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils.” 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 considered that whilst Mr Barker had shown a level of insight into his actions, he did not engage with the severity of his actions or the impact they had on the wider profession of teaching. 16 On the face of the evidence before it, the panel noted that whilst Mr Barker had engaged with his community order requirements, there is a lack of evidence that there has been sustained rehabilitation. In the absence of any recent evidence provided by Mr Barker, the panel considered that there was insufficient information before it as to the current measures Mr Barker has put in place to prevent any reoccurrence.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Barker has developed full insight into his behaviour means that there is some risk of repetition and this puts the future wellbeing of pupils in jeopardy. 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 notes the following: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Barker were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The public, rightly, expect teachers to act appropriately and professionally at all times. These are fundamental tenets of the profession. In that context, the panel considered Mr Barker’s actions damaged public confidence in him, as a professional, and the profession as a whole.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher engaging in sexualised online activity centred on children in this case and the very negative impact that such a finding is likely to 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 unacceptable professional conduct, conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, and 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 Barker himself. The panel records the following comments: “Whilst no doubt had been cast upon Mr Barker’s proficiency as a teacher, the panel considered that there was no evidence available as to his prior practice as an educator, and more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that Barker has made an exceptional contribution to the profession. In particular, Mr Barker had not 17 presented any character references or testimonials and had indicated that he is not presently working within the profession.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Barker 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 the misconduct found by the panel, which included a teacher engaging in online communications that centred on sexual activity involving children. I have also factored in the lack of evidence that Mr Barker has developed full insight into his behaviour. 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 concluding comments: “In addition, the panel considered that in the absence of any professional opinion as to the prevention of relapse, it was not satisfied that a review period would be appropriate in all the circumstances. The public interest considerations that Mr Barker’s conduct give rise to were such that this was necessary, appropriate and proportionate. Having regard to the nature of Mr Barker’s actions, which led to his conviction, the panel determined that Mr Barker’s actions are fundamentally incompatible with his being a teacher.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate response in order 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 by the panel and the unacceptable risk of repetition. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Julian Barker 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 Barker shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. 18 This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Barker has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 18 March 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.