Mr Louis Stockton

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 Louis Stockton

Teacher reference number: 2080931

Teacher's date of birth: 7 January 1994

Location teacher worked: Cheltenham, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 7 to 9 January 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 Louis Stockton formerly employed in Cheltenham, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

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

Mr Louis Stockton: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Louis Stockton Teacher ref number: 2080931 Teacher date of birth: 7 January 1994 TRA reference: 22839 Date of determination: 9 January 2026 Former employer: Cheltenham Ladies’ College, Gloucestershire (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 7 to 9 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Stockton. The panel members were Mr John Martin (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Katie Dent (lay panellist) and Mrs Wendy Baxter (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mrs Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Stockton was present and was represented by Mr Philip Bown of Cartwright King Solicitors. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 22 October 2025. It was alleged that Mr Stockton was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while employed as a teacher at Cheltenham Ladies’ College (“the School”): 1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, both whilst they were a pupil and following their departure from the School, in that he; a) exchanged one or more messages via Instagram and/or Snapchat between 15 July 2023 and 3 October 2023; b) on an occasion in or around August 2023, he:- i) went to the pub with Pupil A; and/or ii) allowed Pupil A to stay overnight at your flat; c) on an occasion on or around 4 September 2023, he:- i) visited Pupil A; and / or ii) stayed overnight at Pupil A’s university accommodation; iii) shared a bed with Pupil A; 2. He did not disclose, or attempt to disclose, his communication and/or relationship with Pupil A to the School prior to 19 September 2023, when he had become aware that there was a risk of concerns being reported to the School by others; 3. On one or more occasions he provided false and/or misleading information regarding his contact / relationship with Pupil A, in that:- a) during a meeting with the School’s Safeguarding Lead on or around 20 September 2023, he:- i) claimed he had not met up with Pupil A, which was untrue; ii) claimed he had ceased contact with Pupil A and/or asked Pupil A to stop messaging him, which was untrue; b) during a meeting with the School’s Safeguarding Lead on or around 3 October 2023, he:- 5 i) claimed he had not met up with Pupil A, which was untrue; ii) claimed he had ceased contact with Pupil A and/or asked Pupil A to stop messaging him on Instagram, which was untrue; 4. His conduct as may be proven at allegation 3a and/or 3b was dishonest, in that he knowingly provided false and/or misleading information Mr Stockton admitted allegations 2, 3(a)(i) to (ii) and 3(b)(i). Mr Stockton admitted the facts of allegations 1(a), 1(b)(i) to (ii) and 1(c)(i) to (iii), but denied the stem of the allegation that this was a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A. Mr Stockton denied the facts of allegations 3(b)(ii) and 4. Mr Stockton denied that his admitted conduct constituted unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 4 to 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 28 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 29 to 33 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 34 to 266 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 267 to 270 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • Mr Stockton’s written statement - pages 271 to 277 • Character references – pages 278 to 284 • Safeguarding training certificates – 285 to 287 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”). 6 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the presenting officer: • Witness A – [REDACTED] • Mr Stockton also gave oral evidence. 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 Stockton was employed as a teacher at the School from 1 September 2022 until 23 October 2023. Mr Stockton was referred to the TRA on 30 November 2023. 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. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, whilst they were a pupil and/or following their departure from the School, in that you; a) exchanged one or more messages via Instagram and/or Snapchat between 15 July 2023 and 3 October 2023; Mr Stockton admitted that he exchanged one or more messages with Pupil A via Instagram and/or Snapchat between 15 July 2023 and 3 October 2023. However, Mr Stockton denied the stem of the allegation, that this conduct was a failure to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A. In his written statement, Mr Stockton stated that he was “one of six teachers who took a group of pupils [REDACTED] and school leavers” from the School on a [REDACTED] and that “Pupil A was one of the school leavers”. Mr Stockton further stated that [REDACTED] was his “first contact with Pupil A” and then they “became friendly and exchanged messages” on Teams whilst on the [REDACTED]. Mr Stockton also stated in his written statement that he “set up an Instagram account” following his return from [REDACTED] and exchanged messages with Pupil A who was “18 years of age and was no longer a [School] pupil” as the end of the School’s term, 7 according to the School’s website, was 5 July 2023. Mr Stockton further stated that he “stayed in touch” with Pupil A over Instagram following his meeting with Pupil A at the end of August 2022. In his oral evidence, Mr Stockton confirmed that the date in his written statement was a typographical error, and the date of his meeting with Pupil A was August 2023 not August 2022. In his oral evidence, Witness A stated that Mr Stockton requested a meeting on 19 September 2023 so that he could “self-refer” regarding his conduct. The panel considered a meeting note exhibited to Witness A’s written statement, in relation to the requested meeting that took place on 20 September 2023 between Mr Stockton and Witness A. Within the meeting, Mr Stockton stated the following: • That he began messaging Pupil A on Teams during the School’s [REDACTED]. Mr Stockton explained that most of the communications were via Teams rather than face to face and he “never communicated via any other medium outside Teams” during this time. • Once the School’s [REDACTED] ended, Pupil A invited Mr Stockton to follow her on Instagram. As Pupil A had left the School, Mr Stockton stated that he “felt that he could” follow Pupil A. As such, there was “to-ing and fro-ing on Instagram” which occurred since the [REDACTED] but was “not happening now”. • When asked by Witness A how regular his contact was on Instagram over the summer, Mr Stockton stated they were “non irregular”. • Mr Stockton stated that the conversations with Pupil A were about music and going to university, but Mr Stockton was “worried” the engagement with Pupil A was “over familiar”. As such, Mr Stockton had told Pupil A to stop messaging him via phone call. The panel considered an email exhibited to Witness A’s written statement, sent by Mr Stockton to Witness A on 21 September 2023. Within the email, the panel noted that Mr Stockton confirmed that he could not provide the School with copies of his Instagram messages as he had “deleted” Pupil A. The panel considered a meeting note exhibited to Witness A’s written statement, in relation to a meeting that took place on 29 September 2023 between Pupil A and Witness A. Within this meeting, Pupil A confirmed the following: • Communication between Pupil A and Mr Stockton started on Teams which was “friendly”. Pupil A suggested they keep in touch via Instagram and thereafter, their correspondence moved to Instagram. They would discuss music as they had “similar music tastes” and Mr Stockton would say things such as “what are your plans for the summer?” or “have you made any friends yet at uni [sic]?”. 8 • Pupil A did not have any copies of the Instagram messages with Mr Stockton to share. Pupil A stated that she had deleted the messages as contact had ceased between them through a mutual decision. The panel noted that Pupil A’s evidence was hearsay evidence which a panel decided to admit at a case management hearing. In considering what weight to place on her evidence, the panel noted that Pupil A’s statements regarding messages exchanged on Instagram were consistent with Mr Stoc