Mr Matthew Chown

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 Chown

Teacher reference number: 1853239

Teacher's date of birth: 1 October 1990

Location teacher worked: King’s Lynn, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 February 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 Chown formerly employed in King’s Lynn, 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.

Mr Matthew Chown Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 6 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 31 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 34 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Matthew Chown Teacher ref number: 1853239 Teacher date of birth: 1 October 1990 TRA reference: 23117 Date of determination: 27 February 2025 Former employer: Litcham School, Norfolk Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 27 February 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Matthew Chown. The panel members were Ms Sue Davies (lay panellist - in the chair), Ms Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist) and Mr John Abramson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Helen Kitchen of Blake Morgan 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 Chown that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Chown 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 Ms Carolyn Thackstone, Mr Chown or any representative on Mr Chown’s behalf. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 16 January 2025. It was alleged that Mr Matthew Chown was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at Litcham School: 1. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, in that: a) Between November 2022 and November 2023, he engaged in frequent contact with Pupil A via email and/or letter, in which he discussed inappropriate topics, namely i. Running away with Pupil A ii. Referencing that he had threatened to quit the school if he were not teaching Pupil A iii. Talking about being depressed that Pupil A would finish schooling in one year iv. Making comment about the speed and/or quantity of replies from Pupil A v. Referencing lying to the school for students vi. Calling Pupil A your favourite student vii. Stating that you would follow Pupil A to College and University viii. Discussing growing old with Pupil A ix. His personal life x. Discussing driving past Pupil A’s house xi. Discussing Pupil A’s relationships in relation to: a) Her relationship with Pupil C b) Jokes about her being married to a house guest. xii. Discussing keeping Pupil A hostage b) Made inappropriate and/or sexualised comments, in which he: i. Referenced Pupil A’s skirt length 5 ii. Referenced Pupil A being naked and/or asked if she was naked iii. Referenced the wearing crop-tops and/or hot pants Engaged in sexual innuendo, in that he: a. Referred to “late evening blowing” in an email to Pupil A on b. Referred to Pupil A as a “well above average blower of a saxophone” on 06.07.2023 c) Referred to “extra-curricular blowing” and “blowing all over the place” in an email to Pupil A on 15.07.2023 c) Asked Pupil A to keep secrets about the topics discussed on or about 12 September 2023: d) Discussing an individual at Pupil A’s work experience placement engaging in inappropriate behaviour in a jovial way: e) Sent emails outside of school hours. f) He purchased one or more gifts for Pupil A, namely: i. Ice cream; ii. A pen emblazoned with “Thundercunt Thursday”; iii. A Duck keyring; iv. A £10 Cadbury’s voucher; g) Arranged to meet Pupil A alone on one or more occasions within school hours and/or immediately after school hours and on school premises. 2. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil B, in that he engaged in contact via email in which he: a) Discussed inappropriate topics, namely having told another pupil to discuss “the canoodling” with Pupil B; b) Used “Sheep” in place of expletives in a message 3. He failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with one or more pupils, in that he purchased gifts for them, namely: 6 a) A pen emblazoned with “Suck a Dick Sunday”; b) Pens emblazed with expletives. 4. His behaviour as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. 5. His conduct as may be found proven at 1 a) (i), 1 a) (v) and 1c) above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest 6. His conduct as may be found proven at 1 was despite: a) Having received management advice in October 2023 regarding his interactions with pupils; b) Having been advised to cease communication with Pupil A in October 2023. Mr Chown had made clear admissions to the facts of allegations 1 to 6 and all of the sub parts of those allegations. Mr Chown also admitted that those facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and that they amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: 1.Hearing bundle including: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 5 Section 2: Notice of referral and response – pages 6 to 37 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 38 to 59 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 60 to 210 Section 5: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 211 to 300 7 Section 6: Teacher documents – pages 301 to 305 2. Finalised school disclosure bundle comprising emails between Mr Chown and pupils (internally labelled pages 1 to 440) – pages 306 to 745 3. Notice of meeting dated 16 January 2025 – pages 1 to 4 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents listed at 1 to 3 above, 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 Chown on 30 October 2024. Decision and reasons 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 Chown 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. Introduction Mr Matthew Chown was a physics teacher at Litcham School, Norfolk (‘the school’). He had worked at the school from 6 July 2019 and was promoted to second in science on 1 September 2020. He was also a form tutor for a year 11 class. On 5 October 2023, the parents of Pupil A, a pupil who was taught by Mr Chown but who was not in his form group, sent an email to the school raising concerns about rumours at the school regarding Mr Chown and Pupil A. The school was satisfied that the rumours were malicious. Mr Chown was provided with informal advice at that time to safeguard himself. On 10 November 2023, a CPOMS log was made by a member of staff regarding comments made to them and queries from students regarding what was and was not 8 appropriate email communication between a pupil and member of staff, which gave rise to a concern about email communication between Mr Chown and Pupil A. On 13 November 2023, following a review of an initial sample, and later a larger selection, of the emails between Mr Chown and Pupil A, Mr Chown was suspended and a formal investigation was commenced. Following a LADO referral the same day, a LADO meeting was held and the police alerted to the concerns raised. On 13 December 2023, the concerns about Mr Chown were taken forward to a disciplinary hearing and that hearing took place on 10 January 2024. Mr Chown ceased working at the school on 10 January 2024. On 26 January 2024, the police recommended that no further action be taken Findings of fact The panel carefully considered all of the evidence including the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Chown. It accepted the legal advice provided. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A, in that: a) Between November 2022 and November 2023, you engaged in frequent contact with Pupil A via email and/or letter, in which you discussed inappropriate topics, namely i) Running away with Pupil A This part of the allegation was admitted in its entirety by Mr Chown. Mr Chown accepted that he had discussed running away with Pupil A on one or more occasions including on 28 November 2022 (erroneously identified as 2024 in the statement of agreed facts) when he stated: “so no need for us to skip the country and open a giraffe sanctuary (I’m not sure if that is good news or not!)”. Mr Chown asserted that he did not intend to run away with Pupil A and accepted that in making this comment he failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries by discussing an inappropriate topic. 9 The panel noted that the date of the email, and its content (as above), had been correctly identified in the case papers, including when the email and its content had been put to Mr Chown