Mr Martin Jones

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 Martin Jones

Location teacher worked: Derby, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 to 29 May 2026

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 Martin Jones, formerly employed in Derby, East Midlands.

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 - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Martin Jones: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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 17 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Martin Jones TRA reference: 20760 Date of determination: 29 May 2026 Former employer: Repton School, Derbyshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 27 to 29 May 2026 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT, to consider the case of Mr Martin Jones. The panel members were Mrs Monique Clark (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Anila Rai (lay panellist) and Mr Tim Cole (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Madison Taylor of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Jones was present and was represented by Ms Kathryn Pitters of Broadway House Chambers. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 12 February 2026, as amended following the presenting officer’s application during the hearing. It was alleged that Mr Jones was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that while employed at Repton School (the “School’): 1. In or about 2005, he kissed Pupil B whilst they were a pupil at the School. 2. His conduct at Particular 1 was sexually motivated. In addition, it was alleged that Mr Jones was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence in that: 3. On 5 July 2005, he was convicted of ‘On 13 June 2005 at Ticknall drove a motor vehicle [REDACTED] after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, namely 70 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit. Contrary to Section 5(a)(a) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Section 34(1) Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988’. 4. On 18 March 2019, he was convicted of ‘On 3 March 2019 at [REDACTED] drove a motor vehicle [REDACTED] after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath, namely 78 microgrammes of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath, exceeded the prescribed limit’. Mr Jones denied the facts of allegations 1 and 2. He 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 proceedings, signed by Mr Jones’ representative on 16 March 2026. Mr Jones admitted the convictions at allegations 3 and 4 and the facts underpinning them, although submitted that it was a matter for the panel to determine if the convictions were ‘relevant’ for the purposes of the Procedures. 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 4 to 7 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 25 Section 3: TRA witness statements and exhibits – pages 26 to 63 Section 4: Other relevant TRA documents – pages 64 to 115 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 116 to 253 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following:  A one-page email thread between Mr Jones and the surgeon who completed surgery on Mr Jones’ knee in 2005, which it numbered page 254; and  A four-page email thread between Mr Jones’ solicitor and the TRA, which it numbered page 255-258. 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:  Pupil M Mr Jones attended the hearing and gave oral evidence. Mr Jones also called the following witness:  Pupil B 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 July 2003, Mr Jones commenced employment at the School. On 5 July 2005, Mr Jones was convicted at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court, having entered a guilty plea for the offence of driving a motor vehicle after consuming so much alcohol that the proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. In or about 2005, Mr Jones was allegedly seen kissing Pupil B at a School social. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE On 18 March 2019, Mr Jones was convicted at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court, having entered a guilty plea for the offence proportion of it in his breath exceeded the prescribed limit. On 27 April 2022, a former governor of the School submitted a misconduct referral to the TRA raising concerns about alleged sexual misconduct by Mr Jones. In or around May 2022, a concern was raised with the Independent Schools Inspectorate (‘ISI’), which alleged that Mr Jones had engaged in inappropriate conduct with pupils. On 8 February 2023, a representative of the ISI submitted a misconduct referral form to the TRA in respect of those concerns, alleging that Mr Jones had engaged in inappropriate conduct with pupils. On 7 March 2023, the School submitted a misconduct referral form to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. In or about 2005, you kissed Pupil B whilst they were a pupil at the School. The panel noted that Mr Jones denied allegation 1, as set out in the response to notice of proceedings dated 16 March 2026 and reaffirmed in his oral evidence during the hearing. The panel noted that the primary basis of the TRA’s case in respect of this allegation was the evidence of Pupil M. In the oral evidence and written statement of Pupil M, she recalled attending a social event at the School [REDACTED]. Pupil M provided a detailed description of the physical layout of the setting of the social event, explaining that it was in the School’s “theatre” – and confirming when asked that this was the same location known as the “400 Hall” – which had “blackout curtains” in the main area and was populated with a dancefloor with a DJ for the event. She described an atrium area attached to the main area, which people would gravitate to if they wanted some quieter time or a chat, which the panel took to indicate that the main room was noisy due to the dancefloor and DJ. Pupil M described the atmosphere at these social events – which took place once a term – as “big budget events” which were “very exciting, extremely lively, extremely fun […] a big big party”. Pupil M described being “in the middle of the dancefloor” at the event, which she characterised as busy as it was a “group of 16- to 18-year-olds having a great time”. Pupil M recalled seeing a couple kissing near her on the dancefloor, but that she could not identify who the pair was while they were kissing. She commented that it was not 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE unusual for students to kiss each other at events like these, and that this couple were “right in front of me”. Pupil M recalled being “knocked” while on the dancefloor and jostled into the pair, causing them to stop kissing and look towards her. Pupil M stated that at that point, she was able to see the faces of the couple. She recalled that it was Mr Jones who was kissing Pupil B. Pupil M recalled seeing Mr Jones’ face clearly in that moment, stating that he was “not in fancy dress” and that once he and Pupil B “broke apart, his face turned to mine and locked eye contact with me […] straight at me. There was no mistake who I saw”. Pupil M could not recall how many drinks she had consumed at the time she saw Mr Jones and Pupil B kissing. Pupil M explained how she would certainly have had one drink but was unsure whether she had consumed two. Pupil M stated that pupils were only given one or two drinks at these events, typically beer rather than strong alcohol. Pupil M submitted that, [REDACTED], and therefore she would not have consumed more than one or two drinks. The panel considered Mr Jones’ evidence surrounding the alleged incident. Mr Jones was not able to recall with any certainty whether he attended the relevant social event. While he accepted that it was not unusual for him and other teachers to attend such events in various capacities, sometimes on a rota to provide supervision for students, sometimes as a social opportunity among the staff to catch up with one another after their respective sporting engagements on Saturdays, he could not definitively recall if he had been at the specific event in question. With respect to his knowledge of Pupil B, Mr Jones submitted that she was not a pupil he knew in [REDACTED]. He explained that he had not coached her [REDACTED]. Mr Jones denied that he had kissed Pupil B, either on the dancefloor at the [REDACTED] as alleged by Pupil M or at any other point. When as