Mr Lee Fountain

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 Lee Fountain

Teacher reference number: 0106467

Teacher's date of birth: 8 October 1978

Location teacher worked: Kent, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 April 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 Lee Fountain formerly employed in Kent, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Lee Fountain: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Lee Fountain Teacher ref number: 0106467 Teacher date of birth: 8 October 1978 TRA reference: 21286 Date of determination: 14 April 2025 Former employer: Chatham & Clarendon Grammar School, Ramsgate Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 April 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Lee Fountain. The panel members were Mr Paul Burton (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Julie Wells (teacher panellist) and Mrs Jane Brothwood (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Benjamin Lewins of Birketts 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 Fountain that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Fountain provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks LLP, Mr Fountain or any representative for Mr Fountain. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 21 January 2025. It was alleged that Mr Fountain was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On or around 11 October 2022, he did not maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A in that he: a) Put his arm(s) around Pupil A; b) Kissed Pupil A; 2. His conduct at paragraph 1 above was sexually motivated; 3. On 20 October 2022, he accepted a Police Caution for Sexual Activity with a female (aged: 13-17) adult abuse of position of trust (offender does not believe victim is over 18 abuse of position of trust on 11 October 2022) contrary to section 16 (1) (a)-(c), (e) (i) and (5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Fountain admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 2 and 3, as set out in the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Fountain on 27 August 2024, confirmed by emails on 28 June 2023 and 21 October 2024. 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 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 6 to 23 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 24 to 31 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 32 to 206 Section 5: Teacher correspondence – pages 207 to 215 5 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 Fountain on 27 August 2024. 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 Fountain 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. Mr Fountain commenced employment as an English teacher at Chatham & Clarendon Grammar School (‘the School’) on 1 September 2007. Mr Fountain was captured on CCTV kissing a sixth form student under the age of 18 (‘Pupil A’) in a classroom. On 20 October 2022, Mr Fountain was issued with a caution for being a person aged 18 or over in a position of trust in relation to a girl aged 17 and not reasonably believing she was aged 18 or over, intentionally touched her and the touching was sexual. Mr Fountain signed this caution. The matter was referred to the TRA on 18 November 2022. 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. On or around 11 October 2022, you did not maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A in that you: 6 a) Put your arm(s) around Pupil A; b) Kissed Pupil A; The panel considered the statement of agreed facts and noted that there was CCTV footage which allegedly showed that on 11 October 2022, Mr Fountain and Pupil A were in a classroom, and Mr Fountain spoke with Pupil A whilst they were sat at their desks opposite each other. Mr Fountain then approached Pupil A whilst she was putting on a jacket/hoody and kissed her on the lips. The footage showed that Pupil A put her arms around his neck and Mr Fountain put his arm around Pupil A and they kissed again. The panel did not have sight of this footage but accepted the account of the CCTV footage within the record of police interview, during which the CCTV footage was played and the events described and confirmed as accurate by Mr Fountain. Having found allegation 1(a) and 1(b) proven, the panel determined that Mr Fountain had failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A. The panel found allegation 1 proven. 2. Your conduct at paragraph 1 above was sexually motivated; The panel considered whether the conduct was sexually motivated. It noted guidance from Basson that: “A sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship”. The panel also considered the case of Haris, in which it was held that, “in the absence of a plausible innocent explanation for what he did, the facts spoke for themselves.” The panel considered that the act of kissing a pupil, was done on the balance of probabilities, in pursuit of sexual gratification and had clear sexual motivation. The panel was of the view that there was no other plausible reason for Mr Fountain’s conduct and therefore concluded that his conduct as described at allegation 1, was sexually motivated. The panel considered that the act of kissing on the lips is an inherently intimate and sexual act. The panel found that Mr Fountain put his arm around Pupil A in the act of kissing Pupil A and when viewed in that context, it could not be distinguished from that act and was also sexually motivated. The panel found allegation 2 proven. 3. On 20 October 2022, you accepted a Police Caution for Sexual Activity with a female (aged: 13-17) adult abuse of position of trust (offender does not believe victim is over 18 abuse of position of trust on 11 October 2022) 7 contrary to section 16 (1) (a)-(c), (e) (i) and (5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The panel noted the police caution document that was supplied in the bundle. Mr Fountain signed the police caution on 20 October 2022 (the “Caution”), which set out that on 11 October 2022, he, being a person aged 18 or over in a position of trust in relation to a girl aged 17 and not reasonably believing she was aged 18 or over, intentionally touched her and the touching was sexual. The panel found allegation 3 proven. 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”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Fountain, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Fountain 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; and o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • 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 Fountain, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”), namely the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE). The panel was not presented with evidence relating to breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children and was therefore not satisfied that the conduct of Mr Fountain, in 8 relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel also considered whether Mr Fountain’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pag