Mr Lloyd Howlett

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 Lloyd Howlett

Teacher reference number: 1756373

Teacher's date of birth: 19 September 1992

Location teacher worked: Essex, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 to 8 August, 27 August 2025 and 28 and 29 May 2026

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Lloyd Howlett formerly employed in Essex, 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.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Mr Lloyd Howlett: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2026 2 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 28 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 35 3 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Lloyd Howlett Teacher ref number: 1756373 Teacher date of birth: 19 September 1992 TRA reference: 19587 Date of determination: 29 May 2026 Former employer: The Cornelius Vermuyden School, Canvey Island Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4 to 8 August 2025 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, and reconvened on 27 August 2025 and 28 and 29 May 2026 virtually to consider the case of Mr Lloyd Howlett. A case management hearing also took place, between the reconvened professional conduct panel hearing, on 9 December 2025. The panel members were Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Joanna Hurren (teacher panellist) and Dr Louise Wallace (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Rebecca Hughes of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officers for the TRA were Ms Charlotte Watts, Mr Ben Bentley and Ms Amalea Bourne and of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Howlett was present and was represented by Ms Ruth Barber of Tees Law. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Allegations The panel considered the allegations as amended by the panel during the hearing. It was alleged that Mr Howlett was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. Between 1 February and 30 June 2021, he: a) S lapped Person A; b) Bit Person A; c) Engaged in sexual intercourse with Person A when: i. Person A did not consent; ii. He did not reasonably believe Person A consented. 2. Between 1 September 2018 and 31 January 2020, he engaged in sexual intercourse with Person B, on one or more occasions, when: a) The person with whom he had sexual intercourse did not consent; b) He did not reasonably believe that the person with whom he had sexual intercourse consented. 3. Your conduct as may be found proven at Allegations 1 and/or 2 was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. Mr Howlett denied allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c)(i)(ii), 2(a), 2(b) and 3, and further denied that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as set out in the response to the notice of hearing, signed by Mr Howlett on 27 April 2025. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 19 Section 2: Anonymisation list – page 21 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 23 to 37 5 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Section 4: TRA documents – pages 39 to 273 Section 5: Teacher documents (at investigation stage) – pages 275 to 278 Section 6: Teacher documents (at hearing stage) – pages 280 to 334 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Emails between Mr Howlett’s representative and Information Rights at Essex police in July 2025 - pages 335 (a) and (b) • Emails between the presenting officer firm and Essex Police [REDACTED] in August 2025 - pages 336 to 342 • Four photographs, pages 343 to 346 • Email between the presenting officer firm and Person B, July 2025 - pages 347 to 349 • ABE summary for Person A – pages 350 to 355 • Emails between [REDACTED] and the presenting officer firm between 4 and 6 August 2025 – pages 356 to 360 • Letter dated 26 August 2025 from Essex Police –page 361 • Email from [REDACTED] of Essex Police on 26 August 2025 – page 362 • Emails between [REDACTED], the data disclosure officer of Essex Police and the presenting officer firm, August 2025 – pages 363 to 366 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. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Person A – [REDACTED] of Mr Howlett. Person B – [REDACTED] of Mr Howlett. Person C – [REDACTED] of Mr Howlett The panel also heard oral evidence from Mr Howlett. 6 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Howlett commenced employment at The Cornelius Vermuyden School (‘the School’) on 9 July 2018. In or around September 2018, Mr Howlett entered into a relationship with Person B. The panel noted that Person B and Mr Howlett’s relationship lasted approximately 18 months, from September 2018 until January 2020, and it was described as long-term. Mr Howlett connected with Person A on Tinder and met her for the first time in February 2021. Mr Howlett and Person A subsequently entered into a relationship that lasted approximately 6 months. The relationship ended in June 2021, and it was Person A who brought the relationship to an end. It was accepted that this was a sexual relationship which included elements of experimentation. Person A and Person B went to the police in around the summer of 2021 in relation to Mr Howlett and the alleged conduct described in the allegations below. The panel heard evidence that they went to the police after Person A formed a WhatsApp group called “Survivors” (although the panel was not provided with any documentary evidence confirming the existence of the group or the content of the messages). Person B acknowledged that she would not have gone to the police without Person A’s support and encouragement. The matter was investigated by the police, and no further action was taken. The matter was referred to the TRA on 22 October 2022. The panel noted that there were various inconsistencies in the evidence provided by all parties who gave oral testimony (including Mr Howlett). However, the panel considered that these discrepancies were likely attributable to the passage of time and the natural fading of memory. The events in question occurred some time ago, and the panel was mindful that recollections may vary or become less precise over time. The panel took this into account when assessing the credibility and reliability of the evidence presented. The panel considered the entirety of the evidence, including the additional material admitted. The panel noted the importance of assessing the contemporaneous documentation then the oral evidence holistically, including where there may be inconsistencies, and considered that discrepancies may arise due to the passage of time or how the evidence was recorded. 7 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE The panel noted that Person A did not attend to give further evidence after the panel had determined that she be recalled following the admission of additional material and that Mr Howlett was therefore not afforded the opportunity to cross-examine her on that material. The panel took this into account when assessing the weight to be attributed to the ABE summary evidence. The panel considered that, whilst there were inconsistencies in Person A’s account, there were some areas of consistency between: • the ABE summary dated 16 July 2021 (“ABE summary”); • the witness statement; and • the oral evidence given at the hearing. In relation to the MG5 document for Person A, the panel noted that it was derived from police interviews and contained a degree of consistency with the ABE summary. The panel considered that such inconsistencies did not necessarily undermine the overall reliability of the account but required careful evaluation. The panel found Person A to be a credible witness overall. Her account was generally consistent and measured and she appeared to be trying her best to assist the panel. The panel concluded her evidence was largely reliable and supported by documentary evidence. However, there were some discrete topics in which there were inconsistency and ambiguity. In relation to Person B, the panel found her evidence to be clear and consistent with her prior statements and the ABE summary. The panel considered that, whilst there were some inconsistencies, her account was largely consistent and persuasive. The panel found Person B to be an extremely clear and credible witness. In relation to Person C she told the panel that the first occasion they had sexual intercourse, he repeatedly checked whether she was comfortable and explicitly asked whether she wanted to proceed, asking words to the effect of “do you want to have sex” on more than one occasion. Person C’s evidence was that, in the context of their interactions, this was unnecessary given the circumstances, but she understood it to reflect caution on his part. Person C further stated that Mr Howlett later disclosed to her the allegations made by Person A and Person B. She was clear in her evidence that he had never forced her into sexual activity, nor had he displayed any behaviour similar to that alleged before the panel. She described their sexual relationship as entirely normal and said that she had seen no indication in his conduct that would suggest he was capable of the alleged behaviour.