Mr Matthew Bell

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 Matthew Bell

Teacher reference number: 9358910

Teacher's date of birth: 18 May 1972

Location teacher worked: Sandhurst, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 - 15 January 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 Matthew Bell[formerly employed in Sandhurst, 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 Matthew Bell: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 16 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Matthew Bell Teacher ref number: 9358910 Teacher date of birth: 18 May 1972 TRA reference: 19647 Date of determination: 15 January 2025 Former employer: Sandhurst School, Owlsmoor Road, Sandhurst, Berkshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 13 to 15 January 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Matthew Bell. The panel members were Mr Martyn Stephens (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Pamela Thompson (lay panellist) and Mrs Susan Siesage (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Nicholas West of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Louisa Atkin of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Bell was present and was represented by Mr Nicholas Kennan of Cornwall Street Barristers, instructed by Thompsons Solicitors. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 27 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Bell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a teacher at the Sandhurst School (‘the School’): 1. In or around March 2020 he: a. offered Pupil A his personal mobile telephone number; b. sent one or more emails to Pupil A about meeting up at the School; c. invited Pupil A to attend the School during a period of time when Pupil A was not eligible to attend the School in light of government guidelines relating to the Covid-19 pandemic; d. attended the School gymnasium with Pupil A with no other staff or pupils present; e. on one or more occasions, engaged in leg stretches with Pupil A which included; i. touching Pupil A’s leg or legs; ii. placing his hand(s) on around Pupil A’s stomach and/or hips; iii. placing his hand(s) on around Pupil A’s groin area; iv. Pupil A’s foot being positioned by him, near his groin area. 2. Between around 2019 to 2020, he gave Pupil B his personal mobile number; 3. In around January 2016 he attended the School Sports Hall and engaged in stretches with Pupil D which included touching Pupil D’s leg. 4. His conduct at any or all of 1 to 3 above: a. failed to observe a proper boundary appropriate to a teacher’s professional position; b. was sexually motivated. 5 Mr Bell admitted allegations 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e)(i), 2, 3 and 4(a), denied allegations 1(a), 1(e)(iii), 1(e)(iv) and 4(b) and denied allegation 1(e)(ii) stating he could not remember, as set out in his witness statement dated 11 December 2024. Preliminary applications Application to amend allegations The presenting officer made an application to amend allegation 1(e)(iv) to delete the wording in square brackets. “[to be amended on receipt of full School documentation, if required]” which had been included in error. The panel noted that Mr Bell’s instructing solicitors had been informed of the proposed change to this allegation prior to the hearing and there was no objection to the proposed amendment by Mr Bell’s representative at the hearing. The panel was advised that it had the power to amend allegations in accordance with paragraph 5.83 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘2020 Procedures’). The panel considered that the proposed amendment would not change the nature and scope of the allegations in that the wording included in error was not factual or capable of proof. As such, the panel considered that the proposed amendment did not amount to a material change to the allegations. The legal adviser drew the panel’s attention to the case of Dr Bashir Ahmedsowida v General Medical Council [2021] EWHC 3466 (Admin), 2021 WL 06064095 which held that the lateness of amendments did not necessarily mean they were unjust, as acknowledged in the previous case of Professional Standards Authority v Health and Care Professions Council and Doree [2017] EWCA Civ 319 at [56]. Accordingly, the panel did grant this application and considered the amended allegations, which are set out above. 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 • Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 28 6 • Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 29 to 61 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 62 to 260 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 261 to 268. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. The panel also viewed 14 video clips of CCTV footage both of and around the School’s sports hall on 26 March 2020, in advance of the hearing. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the TRA: • Witness A • Pupil A • Witness B • Witness C Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 1 September 1996, Mr Bell commenced employment at the School. In January 2016, Mr Bell was alleged to have assisted stretching with Pupil D. A LADO referral was made. Between 2019 and 2020, Mr Bell allegedly gave Pupil B his personal phone number. In March 2020, Mr Bell allegedly offered Pupil A his personal phone number. In March 2020, Mr Bell sent an email to Pupil A inviting him to meet at the School. Mr Bell allegedly met Pupil A at the School and attended the School gymnasium with no other staff or pupils present, and engaged in assisted stretching with Pupil A. On 3 April 2020, Mr Bell was suspended from the School. On 4 November 2020, Mr Bell was dismissed from the School. 7 On 24 November 2020, the School referred concerns about Mr Bell to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. In or around March 2020 you: a) offered Pupil A your personal mobile telephone number; The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Pupil A, who stated that on his last day of school Mr Bell “offered me his personal number and said that if I ever needed help, I can contact him”. Pupil A’s oral evidence was consistent at the hearing that Mr Bell had offered him his personal mobile number but he had declined the offer, preferring to correspond by email. The panel found Pupil A to be a compelling and truthful witness in his oral evidence at the hearing. The panel noted contemporaneous documentary evidence regarding Pupil A’s disclosures to his [REDACTED] which stated, “The student also advised that on the last day of school MJB offered the student his personal number”. The panel was careful to note that this was hearsay evidence, but considered it supported Pupil A’s oral and written account and appropriate weight could therefore be given to it. The panel noted that this disclosure was undated but considered that it must be contemporaneous as an earlier paragraph stated, “The student told his [REDACTED] that after the high jump session the other day…” and this disclosure was included in the School’s investigation report dated 30 April 2020. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness C, who stated that she looked at CCTV footage for the day the Year 11 leaving assembly was held and saw Mr Bell waiting outside of the assembly for Pupil A. Witness C stated that Mr Bell appeared to call Pupil A into his office from the CCTV evidence, which is consistent with Pupil’s A’s account. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Mr Bell, which stated “I deny this allegation. I did not offer my number”. The panel further noted the more contemporaneous documentary evidence in the form of investigation interview notes between Witness A and Mr Bell dated 29 April 2020 and specifically, Mr Bell’s acceptance in the notes “I I c, I can’t remember if I said contact my mobile” when discussing Pupil A. The panel also noted during Mr Bell’s oral evidence at the hearing, he was asked if he is likely to be mistaken about his recollection of this incident and he responded, “I don’t know”. In light of all of the available evidence, the panel concluded on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not that Mr Bell had offered Pupil A his personal 8 mobile telephone number in March 2020. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a) proven. b) sent one or more emails to Pupil A about meeting up at the School; The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Pupil A, who stated that Mr Bell “had sent me an email asking if I wanted to attend the school and practice the high jump”. The panel noted documentary evidence of the emails between Pupil A and Mr Bell between 23 March 2020 and 26 March 2020. This included an email from Mr Bell to Pupil A on 26 March 2020 stating, “Hi, [REDACTED] [sic] currently in school today. Don’t now if you want to come in later to do some high jump. Let me know… MJB”. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Mr Bell, which stated he accepted emails were sent to Pupil A and they did discuss meeting arrangements. In light of all of the available