Mr Lawrence Lowman

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 Lawrence Lowman

Location teacher worked: Suffolk, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 3 November 2025 to 6 November 2025

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 Lawrence Lowman formerly employed in Suffolk, East of 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.

Mr Lawrence Lowman: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 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 14 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Lawrence Lowman TRA reference: 22515 Date of determination: 5 November 2025 Former employer: The Albert Pye Community Primary School, Beccles Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 3 – 4 November 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, and virtually on 5 - 6 November 2025, to consider the case of Mr Lawrence Lowman. The panel members were Mrs Joanne Arscott (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Sarah Gardiner (lay panellist) and Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Claire Watson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley solicitors. Mr Lawrence Lowman was present and was represented by Ms Louise Price of Counsel. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 15 July 2025. It was alleged that Mr Lawrence Lowman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as Teacher and Assistant Headteacher at The Albert Pye Community Primary School (“the School”): 1. Between 18 July 2023 and 19 August 2023, he exchanged inappropriate messages on Instagram with Pupil B despite being given direct instruction by Colleague A not to message pupils on social media on 4 July 2023; 2. On or around 5 September 2023, he provided false information to Colleague A stating that he had not been in contact with Pupil B on Instagram, despite knowing this was not true; 3. On or around 27 March 2017 and/or 3 July 2023, he submitted application forms to the School where he failed to disclose a drink driving conviction in 2015, despite this disclosure being requested on the form; 4. His conduct at paragraph(s) 1 – 3 was: a. Dishonest; b. Lacked integrity At a case management hearing on 27 October 2025, the presenting officer applied to amend allegation 3 as set out above in the Notice of Proceedings. The panel directed to amend allegation 3 to the following: 3. On or around 3 July 2023, he submitted a Criminal Convictions Disclosure Form to the School where he failed to disclose a drink driving conviction in 2015, despite this disclosure being requested on the form; Mr Lowman denied the allegations. 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 7 to 9 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 10 to 21 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 46 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 47 to 567 Section 5: Teacher’s representations – pages 568 to 700 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Single Central Record screen print – pages 701-702 Single Central Record extract – pages 703 - 714 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. 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 panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness C – [REDACTED] Colleague A - [REDACTED] Witness D - [REDACTED] and Mother B, mother of Pupil B. Mr Lowman also gave oral evidence and called the following witnesses: Father B, father of Pupil B; and Witness E – [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. 6 Mr Lowman had been employed at the School since 1 September 2017 as a class teacher. He was successful in his application for the position of assistant headteacher at the School and commenced this role on 1 September 2023. On 4 September 2023, Mother B emailed the School, attaching screenshots of communication between Mr Lowman and Pupil B on Instagram. The School suspended Mr Lowman on 6 September 2023 pending further investigation. 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. Between 18 July 2023 and 19 August 2023, you exchanged inappropriate messages on Instagram with Pupil B despite being given direct instruction by Colleague A not to message pupils on social media on 4 July 2023; The panel had sight of a screenshot of Instagram messages between Mr Lowman and Pupil B, dated 18 July 2023 to 19 August 2023. In total, there were twelve messages. Pupil B instigated the conversation on 18 July 2023, asking Mr Lowman to “follow me back pls”. Mr Lowman did not respond and on 27 July 2023, Pupil B messaged “Pls”. Mr Lowman responded, “If I was allowed to, I would”. Pupil B asked Mr Lowman why he was not allowed to, and Mr Lowman stated that it was because Pupil B was an “ex- pupil/child”. Pupil B followed up by saying Mr Lowman was allowed to because he was an ex-pupil and again asked Mr Lowman to follow him back. Mr Lowman then agreed on 19 August 2023 and said “But don’t say anything!!!”. The messages also contained a heart icon underneath some of the messages. Mr Lowman explained these were sent as an acknowledgement when you double clicked on a message. In oral evidence, Colleague A explained that although Pupil B had left the School in [REDACTED] Pupil B remained on the School’s roll until [REDACTED] and therefore if there were any safeguarding incidents over the summer holidays, the School were responsible for dealing with such an incident. The panel considered whether the messages were inappropriate. The panel noted that Pupil B had instigated the messages and there was no evidence that Mr Lowman had followed Pupil B on Instagram. In oral evidence, Mr Lowman accepted that in hindsight the messages were inappropriate. He explained that he had tried to be kind in responding to Pupil B to let him down gently, rather than ignoring him. Mr Lowman stated that in asking Pupil B not to say anything, he had meant for Pupil B to not tell his peers so that he did not receive messages from others. [REDACTED] 7 The panel considered it inappropriate for Mr Lowman to respond to Pupil B on Instagram. Pupil B had just left the School and remained on the School’s roll. Furthermore, the panel considered it inappropriate for Mr Lowman to ask a child not to “tell anyone”, regardless of the intention behind that request. The panel then went on to consider whether Mr Lowman sent the inappropriate messages to Pupil B despite being given direct instruction by Colleague A not to message pupils on social media on 4 July 2023. The presenting officer stated the identity of Colleague A. In written evidence, Colleague A stated that on 4 July 2023, she received a phone call from a headteacher at another school which related to Mr Lowman’s use of social media. In oral and written evidence, Colleague A explained she spoke with Mr Lowman on 4 July 2023 and gave advice that if he was ever contacted by a pupil or ex-pupil on social media, Mr Lowman should report it to them and block that person. She then followed that up in writing the next day on advice from HR with an email to all staff members. The panel had sight of an extract from the School’s system for recording concerns, on which Colleague A had recorded “gave [Mr Lowman] advice on what to do if he was ever contacted by a pupil or ex pupil…spoke to him about Teacher Standards, KCSIE, Code of Conduct etc.”. The panel noted that this was not a contemporaneous note of the conversation with Mr Lowman and the record was not logged until 5 September 2023, a month after the conversation occurred. In oral evidence, Colleague A explained that this was because it was a new system that she did not previously have access to, but she had it “logged” in one of her notebooks and then added this onto the system. The panel further had sight of the email to all staff members sent by Colleague A on 5 July 2023. This email stated “Please ensure you have no past students of … Albert Pye or any of your previous schools or educational settings on your social media accounts as friends, followers etc.” and contained the School’s Internet and Social Media policy, which stated that “Staff must not be ‘friends’ to, or communicate with, students on ‘Facebook’, ‘Myspace’ and other social network or similar websites” and “under no circumstance should students be in contact with employees through social media. Any correspondence received should be reported to the Designated Safeguarding Lead”. Mr Lowman agreed that a meeting with Colleague A took place on 4 July 2023. However, he did not agree that he had been given a direct instruction on what to do if contacted on social media by pupils or ex-pupils. In oral evidence, Mr Lowman stated that he was advised to check his social media accounts to make sure his privacy settings were up to date and remove any ex-pupils with which he did not have a family friend relationship with outside of the School. Mr Lowman stated that he was not given guidance on 4 July 2023 about what to do if former pupils contacted him or if they were family friends and children of colleagues. In his written statement, Mr Lowman stated that he was aware of the School’s policies on social media, but that it was a long-standing custom and practice at the School for “teachers, parents, and even senior leaders’ children to be connected 8 on social media in limited and appropriate ways” which “reflected the reality of living and working in a very small community”. He further stated that he was told by Colleague A in July 2023 that “the removal of minors from my accounts did not extend to family friends”. In his written statement, Mr Lowman stated that [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The panel considered that on balance, the advice from Colleague A during the meeting on 4 July 2023 had been for Mr Lowman not to communicate with pupils or former pupils on social media. This was the School’s policy and Colleague A had followed up by email the next day to all staff members with the School’s policy. The panel therefore considered that Mr Lowman had exchanged inappropriate messages on Instagram with Pupil B despite being given direct instruction by Colleague A not to message pupils on social media on 4 July 2023. The allegation was therefore, found proved. 2. On or around 5 September 2023, you provided false information to Colleague A stating that you had not been in contact with Pupil B on Instagram, despite knowing this was not true; The presenting officer stated the identity of Colleague A. The teacher also understood the identity of Colleague A. In oral evidence, Colleague A explained that she had sought guidance from the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) on 5 September 2023. Following this, she spoke to Mr Lowman and asked if he “had any contact with any pupils on social media since our first conversation in July” which he denied. Colleague A stated she went on to gradually reveal the screenshots of the messages exchanged with Pupil B and Mr Lowman admitted he had exchanged messages with Pupil B. Mr Lowman stated that he was unexpectedly called into a meeting with Colleague A with no prior knowledge of what the meeting was about. Mr Lowman stated that he was asked in general terms if he “had any contact with any pupils” since the earlier July reminder. Mr Lowman stated that he was caught off guard and he had understood the question to refer to current pupils and therefore answered “no” as he genuinely “could not recall at that moment the brief, unsolicited messages from Pupil B – messages which had occurred months earlier during the summer break and which I had understood as involving a former pupil, not a current pupil”. When he was shown the screenshots of the exchange with Pupil B, Mr Lowman stated that he then acknowledged that the messages were his and was open and transparent “once I knew what was being asked”. [REDACTED] 9 The panel considered whether Mr Lowman may have forgotten about his contact with Pupil B on Instagram. The panel noted that the messages with Pupil B were between 18 July 2023 and 19 August 2023. While unsolicited by Mr Lowman, Pupil B’s request for Mr Lowman to follow him on Instagram was not a one off. The last messages between Pupil B and Mr Lowman were dated 19 August 2023 and were therefore only approximately two weeks prior to the conversation with Colleague A on 5 September 2023. The panel also heard from Mr Lowman, which was supported by an email from Pupil B’s [REDACTED] in the bundle, that he had spoken directly with Pupil B’s [REDACTED] To make sure that Pupil B understood that Mr Lowman could not add him on Instagram. The panel considered that this proactive step did not support Mr Lowman’s position that the exchange with Pupil B was brief and something he did not recollect. The panel noted that Mr Lowman was asked a general question by Colleague A as to whether he “had any contact with any pupils” on social media, rather than a direct question as to whether he had any contact with Pupil B on social media since the earlier July reminder. However, the panel considered this question to have been sufficiently wide enough to encompass whether there had been any messages with Pupil B, and therefore Mr Lowman’s response of “no” when there had been messages on Instagram with Pupil B was false. The allegation was therefore, found proved. 3. On or around 3 July 2023, you submitted a Criminal Convictions Disclosure Form to the School where you failed to disclose a drink driving conviction in 2015, despite this disclosure being requested on the form; The panel had sight of the Criminal Convictions Disclosure Form, submitted by Mr Lowman on or around 3 July 2023. The form was electronically signed by Mr Lowman on 3 July 2023. One of the questions in the form was “Do you have any spent or unspent convictions or cautions in any country?”. Mr Lowman accepted that his response to this question, as shown on the completed form, was “No”. The panel had sight of a memorandum of conviction, which showed that Mr Lowman was convicted of a drink driving offence in 2015. The allegation was therefore, found proved. 4. Your conduct at paragraph(s) 1 – 3 was: a. Dishonest; b. Lacked integrity 10 Having found allegations 1 to 3 proved, the panel considered whether Mr Lowman’s conduct was dishonest or lacked integrity. In relation to the issue of dishonesty, for each allegation the panel applied the test as set out by the Supreme Court in the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd. That test required the panel to first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of Mr Lowman’s knowledge or belief as to the facts. Once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question for the panel to determine was whether his conduct was honest or dishonest by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. In relation to allegation 1, the panel found that Mr Lowman exchanged inappropriate messages on Instagram with Pupil B despite being given a direct instruction by Colleague A not to message pupils on social media on 4 July 2023. The panel considered Mr Lowman to know that he was not to message pupils or former pupils on Instagram, as he had been given a direct instruction not to do this and was aware of the School’s policies on correspondence with pupils via social media, but acted contrary to this direct knowledge. The panel considered Mr Lowman intentionally responded to Pupil B when he knew that he should not do so, as demonstrated in his message to Pupil B that he could not follow Pupil B on Instagram and for him “not to tell anyone”. The panel considered the ordinary decent person would consider this behaviour dishonest, acting contrary to a direct instruction given by a senior leader of the School and in contravention of its policies and safeguarding principles. In relation to allegation 2, the panel found that Mr Lowman had provided false information to Colleague A on 5 September 2023, stating that he had not been in contact with Pupil B on Instagram, despite knowing this was not true. The panel considered that Mr Lowman was aware that he had messaged Pupil B on Instagram at the time of his response to Colleague A, given that the messages had been relatively recent and he had taken additional steps to speak with Pupil B’s cousin about the messages. The panel considered the ordinary decent person would consider it to be dishonest to say to Colleague A that Mr Lowman had not spoken with pupils on social media since July 2023, in the knowledge that he had spoken with Pupil B on Instagram. In relation to allegation 3, the panel considered the wider circumstances around the School’s knowledge of Mr Lowman’s drink driving conviction in 2015. The panel noted that this conviction had been disclosed to the School in 2017 when Mr Lowman applied for a position as a teacher at the School. This was accepted by the TRA. The panel had sight of Mr Lowman’s DBS certificate from 2017, which noted Mr Lowman’s drink driving conviction. The panel also had sight of an extract from the School’s Single Central Record for Mr Lowman, which recorded the number from the 2017 DBS certificate. Additionally, the panel heard from Witness E, who was also one of Mr Lowman’s referees when he made the application for the position of assistant headteacher in 2023, that she was aware of Mr Lowman’s conviction and had heard others at the School openly 11 discuss Mr Lowman’s conviction. Witness E also stated that Mr Lowman had sought her advice as to whether to disclose previous convictions as part of his application. She had advised him that he should do so if the question allowed for it. She also stated she assured Mr Lowman that if it appeared on his DBS, this would be provided to the headteacher and a risk assessment carried out. The panel considered that while it was therefore untruthful for Mr Lowman to state on the application form that he did not have any spent or unspent convictions, the panel did not find this to be dishonest. There was no intention to mislead the School, as he had previously disclosed his drink driving conviction to the School, and Mr Lowman was aware that the School would undertake a further DBS check in 2023, which would again show his conviction for drink driving. The panel went on to consider whether Mr Lowman’s conduct as found proven at allegations 1 to 3 lacked integrity. The panel noted that the concepts of dishonesty and want of integrity are separate and distinct. Integrity connotes adherence to the ethical standards of one’s own profession that involves more than mere honesty. That does not mean professional tribunals must set unrealistically high standards and does not require professional people to be paragons of virtue. However, it is linked to the manner in which the profession professes to serve the public. In relation to allegation 1, the panel considered Mr Lowman’s conduct in messaging Pupil B on Instagram to lack integrity. Although there was no evidence that Mr Lowman had followed Pupil B on Instagram, the panel considered the ethical standards of the teaching profession to require teachers to safeguard pupils by not responding to social media messages and report such messages to the relevant persons such as the school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead. In relation to allegation 2, the panel considered Mr Lowman’s conduct in providing false information to Colleague A that he had not been in contact with Pupil B on Instagram, to lack integrity. Again, the panel considered the ethical standards of the teaching profession to require teachers to safeguard pupils by reporting such messages to the relevant persons such as the school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead. In relation to allegation 3, the panel considered the public to expect teacher’s to accurately complete an application form for a position at a school. The panel heard from Witness E that Mr Lowman had sought her advice on whether he should disclose his conviction for drink driving on the application forms. At this stage, she had not seen the question and did not know if the question referred to new or previous convictions. In questioning from the presenting officer, Witness E stated that her advice to Mr Lowman had been that if there was an option to declare the previous conviction, then to put it. The panel considered Mr Lowman to have acted contrary to this advice. In stating that he did not have any spent or unspent convictions on the Criminal Convictions Disclosure Form in 2023 when he did, the panel considered that Mr Lowman’s conduct lacked integrity as 12 the ethical standards of the profession required application forms to be completed accurately, regardless of whether the conviction was already known to the School. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number 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”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Lowman, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Lowman 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  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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Lowman, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Lowman was in breach of the following provisions: It is essential that everybody working in a school or college understands their safeguarding responsibilities. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. The panel also considered whether Mr Lowman’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 13 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 none of these offences was relevant. In relation to allegations 1 and 2, the panel considered Mr Lowman to have acted contrary to KCSIE and the School’s policies on the acceptable use of social media. It was not appropriate for Mr Lowman to respond to Pupil B, who had just left the School and remained on the School roll, on social media. The conduct as found proven goes against the appropriate boundaries for teachers and pupils and is contrary to safeguarding principles and practices. The panel did not consider Mr Lowman’s conduct to have taken place outside of the education setting, as although the messages were sent to Pupil B on Instagram over the school holidays, Mr Lowman knew Pupil B by virtue of the teacher and pupil relationship within the education setting. The panel did not consider Mr Lowman’s conduct as found proven at allegation 3 to be misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Although failing to disclose a drink driving conviction as part of an application process for a teaching position would ordinarily be misconduct of a serious nature, the panel considered the context in this case. Mr Lowman had previously disclosed to the School that he had a drink driving conviction and held a genuine belief that the School were already aware of his conviction in 2015. Mr Lowman was not therefore seeking to mislead the School or hide his conviction for drink driving from the School. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Lowman in respect of the conduct found proven at allegation 1 and 2 (and its finding of dishonesty and lack of integrity in respect of those allegations) amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Lowman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Lowman’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. 14 In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Lowman’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Lowman was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the panel found that none of these offences were relevant. The panel noted that the advice is not intended to be exhaustive and there may be other behaviours that panels consider to be “conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute”. The panel found that Mr Lowman had acted in direct contradiction to an earlier instruction he had been given and had responded to Pupil B on Instagram when he knew he should not have done so. He had also provided false information to the School when asked if he had spoken with pupils on social media, although only on one occasion and had accepted that the messages to Pupil B were from him when shown the screenshots. In relation to allegation 3, despite the School knowing about his drink driving conviction, the panel considered a failure to disclose this on the Criminal Convictions Disclosure Form could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher, as false information was provided as part of the application process for the role of assistant headteacher and Mr Lowman had acted contrary to the advice he had been given by Witness E. The panel considered that Mr Lowman’s conduct in respect of the matters found proven in allegations 1, 2 and 3 could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Lowman’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 15 safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, 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 Lowman, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of messaging a pupil on social media, despite having been instructed not to do so. Failing to provide accurate information on the Criminal Conviction Disclosure Form, also potentially could have had safeguarding implications (albeit not in this case given the School’s knowledge of the conviction). Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Lowman 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 Lowman 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 Lowman in the profession. The panel decided that there was a public interest consideration in retaining the teacher in the profession, since no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator and he is able to make a valuable contribution to 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. In view of 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 Lowman. 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 panel did not consider Mr Lowman’s behaviour to have seriously affected the education and safeguarding and well-being of a pupil. The messages were a brief exchange during the summer holidays, instigated by Pupil B, after Pupil B had left the School. The panel considered the likelihood of Mr Lowman acting contrary to school’s policies and procedures in responding to a pupil or former pupil on social media in the future to be very low. 16  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); While the panel was satisfied that Mr Lowman’s conduct, as found proven, involved breaches of KCSIE, and noted that Mr Lowman had not reported Pupil B’s messages on Instagram to the School, the content of the messages did not indicate that Pupil B was disclosing a concern or demonstrating that they were at immediate risk.  dishonesty or a lack of integrity. The panel had found that Mr Lowman’s conduct as found proven in respect of allegations 1 and 2 was dishonest and that his conduct as found proven at allegations 1, 2 and 3 lacked integrity. However, the panel considered his conduct to be at the lower end of the scale of seriousness. He was open and transparent that he had sent messages to Pupil B on Instagram when shown the screenshot of the messages and his denial of not having any contact with pupils on social media on 5 September 2023 was not sustained. Even though some of the behaviour 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. In the light of the panel’s findings, there was no evidence that Mr Lowman’s actions were not deliberate. He had deliberately responded to messages from Pupil B on Instagram despite an instruction by Colleague A not to message pupils on social media and had provided false information to Colleague A about this. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Lowman was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. [REDACTED]. Nevertheless, the panel did not consider that Mr Lowman had responded to Pupil B on Instagram under extreme duress, provided false information to Colleague A, or failed to disclose a drink driving conviction on the Criminal Convictions Disclosure Form under extreme duress. Mr Lowman did have a previously good history, having demonstrated high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel accepted that the incidents were out of character. The panel had sight of a number of character references in the hearing bundle, from a variety of people with different connections to Mr Lowman, such as former colleagues and parents of pupils he had taught. There were 18 supporting statements provided to the panel by the teacher in the hearing bundle, in addition to his own witness statement. A teaching assistant who worked with Mr Lowman described Mr Lowman’s interactions with pupils as “always professional, appropriate and focused on their best interests”. 17 A grandfather of a former pupil taught by Mr Lowman described that Mr Lowman “clearly created a learning environment that encouraged engagement and confidence”. A parent of a pupil privately tutored by Mr Lowman described the “profound” difference in their son with Mr Lowman’s support and that Mr Lowman had a “magical way of helping [children who are struggling] to understand themselves, the work they are doing and how to be the best they can be”. A parent of another former pupil stated that “I can confidently say that Mr Lowman stands out as one of the best teachers we encountered. He has consistently demonstrated dedication, compassion, professionalism, and a genuine commitment to supporting young people both academically and personally”. A statement from his former line manager stated “In my time as his line manager, I never had to call into question Lawrence’s professionalism, practice or understanding of his role”. Another statement from a parent of a former pupil stated “it would be a real loss to all of those children who would otherwise have the benefit of such a gifted and inspiring teacher if he were to lose his opportunity to teach again”. The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Lowman. He was clear that, if faced with a similar situation again where a pupil or former pupil had messaged him on social media, he would “absolutely” follow the policies and guidance issued by the school, and if he was unsure of any particulars, seek clarification before doing anything else. Mr Lowman accepted that his actions were misguided, but explained that they “were not intended to cause malice or harm in any way, shape or form”. He spoke enthusiastically about his love and passion for teaching, describing that he “truly believed” that the most rewarding thing you could do was “nurture a child’s curiosity and ambition”. He understood that connecting with pupils on social media could incorrectly demonstrate to children that there are not boundaries between the education profession and themselves. 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, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication 18 would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. 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 sanction. 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 some 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. In this case, the panel has found the conduct at allegation 3 was not dishonest and found that allegation 3 did not amount to unacceptable professional conduct. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Lawrence Lowman should not be the subject of a prohibition order. The panel has recommended that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Lowman 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, 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  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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Lowman involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance Keeping children safe in education (KCSIE). 19 The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Lowman fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In considering 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 likely to bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Lowman, 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: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Lowman, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of messaging a pupil on social media, despite having been instructed not to do so. Failing to provide accurate information on the Criminal Conviction Disclosure Form, also potentially could have had safeguarding implications (albeit not in this case given the School’s knowledge of the conviction).” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also considered the panel’s comments in respect of insight and remorse. The panel has said: “The panel heard oral evidence from Mr Lowman. He was clear that, if faced with a similar situation again where a pupil or former pupil had messaged him on social media, he would “absolutely” follow the policies and guidance issued by the school, and if he was unsure of any particulars, seek clarification before doing anything else. Mr Lowman accepted that his actions were misguided, but explained that they “were not intended to cause malice or harm in any way, shape or form”. He spoke enthusiastically about his love and passion for teaching, describing that he “truly believed” that the most rewarding thing you could do was “nurture a child’s curiosity and ambition”. He understood that connecting with pupils on social media could incorrectly demonstrate to children that there are not boundaries between the education profession and themselves.” The panel has also found that “the likelihood of Mr Lowman acting contrary to school’s policies and procedures in responding to a pupil or former pupil on social media in the 20 future to be very low.” I have therefore given these findings some 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 has observed that “public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Lowman were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of conduct that was dishonest and lacked integrity in this case and the impact that such a finding has 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 and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Lowman himself. The panel has commented: “Mr Lowman did have a previously good history, having demonstrated high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel accepted that the incidents were out of character.” The panel has noted a number of positive character references from former colleagues and parents of pupils including: “A statement from his former line manager stated “In my time as his line manager, I never had to call into question Lawrence’s professionalism, practice or understanding of his role”.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Lowman 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 panel’s finding, “Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel 21 determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case.” I have also placed considerable weight on the panel’s finding that “the likelihood of Mr Lowman acting contrary to school’s policies and procedures in responding to a pupil or former pupil on social media in the future to be very low.” For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. D ecision maker: David Oatley Date: 10 November 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.