Mr Matthew Coombs

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 Coombs

Teacher reference number: 0336557

Teacher's date of birth: 10 August 1972

Location teacher worked: Bury St Edmunds, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 December 2024

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 Coombs, formerly employed in Bury St Edmunds, 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 Coombs: Professional conduct panel meeting Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education 2 December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Matthew Coombs Teacher ref number: 0336557 Teacher date of birth: 10 August 1972 TRA reference: 20237 Date of determination: 2 December 2024 Former employer: Hartest Church of England Primary School, Suffolk Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 December 2024 by Microsoft Teams, to consider the case of Mr Matthew Coombs. The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bev Williams (teacher panellist) and Mrs Jane Gotschel (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Sam Bumby of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. 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 Coombs that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Coombs provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Ms Sophie Allen, Mr Coombs or his representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Coombs on 10 October 2024 (as the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 12 November 2024 referred to correct offence but the wrong statute). It was alleged that Mr Coombs had been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 16 December 2022, Mr Coombs was convicted at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court of attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child between 10 February 2020 – 20 February 2020, contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 The teacher in a Statement of Agreed Facts signed on 10 October 2024 admitted allegation 1. The teacher further admitted conviction of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and List of key people – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Referral, response, and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 10 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 10 to 12 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 14 to 105 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 106 to 110 Section 6: Notice of Meeting (placeholder) – page 111 The panel also received five video recordings of one of Mr Coombs’ police interviews, for which there was a placeholder in the bundle. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle and reviewed the five video recordings, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Coombs on 10 October 2024. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Coombs for the allegation 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. Mr Coombs began employment as the Headteacher at Hartest Church of England Primary School (“The School”) on 1 January 2017. Between 10 and 20 February 2020, Mr Coombs communicated with an individual on the Grindr social media platform. The individual was an undercover police officer who had been trained and authorised to take part in undercover operations to engage with individuals who may have a sexual interest in children. During those communications, the individual disclosed to Mr Coombs that he was only 14 years old. Mr Coombs sent sexually explicit messages and photographs to the individual. Mr Coombs arranged to meet the individual on 20 February 2020 at Cineworld in Ipswich. On 20 February 2020, Mr Coombs was arrested on suspicion of engaging in sexual communication with a child. On 16 December 2022, Mr Coombs was convicted of an attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child, contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 in the Ipswich Magistrates’ Court. Mr Coombs was sentenced on 15 May 2023 in the Ipswich Crown Court to a 2 year Community Order with requirements and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order was made. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 16 December 2022, you were convicted at Ipswich Magistrates’ Court of attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child between 10 February 2020 – 20 February 2020, contrary to s.1(1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981 6 The allegation was admitted in the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Coombs and was supported by evidence presented to the panel within the bundle. The panel reviewed the Certificate of Conviction which was in the bundle and the transcript of the sentencing hearing and was satisfied that Mr Coombs had been convicted of the offence which had been alleged. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Coombs, in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Coombs was in breach of the following standards: Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel also considered that Mr Coombs would have been in breach of further aspects of the Teachers’ Standards, but for the fact that the individual with whom he was communicating was not a pupil at the School. These standards were as follows: Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions The panel noted that Mr Coombs’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting, on the basis that his conviction was for an offence of attempting to engage in sexual communication with a child and this included arranging to meet a child in person although he was arrested before this meeting could take place. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and/or security of members of the public, in this case the individual with whom Mr Coombs was communicating (had the individual not been an undercover police officer). The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Coombs’ behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Coombs were allowed to continue teaching. This was particularly the case as Mr Coombs was the Headteacher of the School and was responsible for delivering safeguarding training to his staff. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity and an attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such offences is likely to be considered “a relevant 7 offence”. The panel considered that this was a serious offence and one which went directly to the question of whether Mr Coombs was fit to be a teacher. The panel took into account the submissions made by Mr Coombs’ counsel at the sentencing hearing that he had no previous convictions and that Mr Coombs had taken steps to address his offending behaviour, in particular, by reducing his alcohol use (which was said by Mr Coombs in his personal statement to have contributed to his offending) and by engaging with his Church. The only evidence which the panel had of Mr Coombs’ teaching ability was in the form of references which were attached to his job application for the School. The panel had no opportunity, however, to test any of this evidence and found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Coombs’ fitness to be a teacher. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Coombs and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be