Mr Matthew Edison

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 Edison

Teacher reference number: 3742453

Teacher's date of birth: 21 May 1989

Location teacher worked: Suffolk, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 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 Edison, formerly employed in Suffolk, East of England.

Mr Matthew Edison: 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 5 Summary of evidence 14 Documents 14 Witnesses 14 Decision and reasons 15 Findings of fact 15 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 37 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 42 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Matthew Stephen Edison Teacher ref number: 3742453 Teacher date of birth: 21 May 1989 TRA reference: 19979 Date of determination: 14 February 2025 Former employer: Finborough School, Suffolk Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on the 3 and 4 February 2025, 7 February 2025, 10 to 12 February 2025, and 14 February 2025 to consider the case of Mr Edison. The panel members were Ms Mona Sood (lay panellist – in the chair), Miss Sue Davies (lay panellist) and Mrs Ashley Emmerson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Claire Watson of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Howard Tobias of Capsticks LLP solicitors. On 12 and 14 February 2025, the presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Jessica Bass of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Edison was present on 3 February 2025 and was not represented. Mr Edison was not present for the remainder of the hearing and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, except for parts of the hearing that took place in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of proceedings dated 19 November 2024. It was alleged that Mr Edison was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a teacher at Finborough School, Suffolk (“the School”): 1. On or around 25 January 2018, he: a. Consumed alcohol and/or was drunk in the presence of students on school premises; b. Supplied and/or assisted in the supply of alcohol to students; c. Made inappropriate physical contact with one or more female students by kissing them on the cheek and/or placing his hand around their waist; d. Commented to students that he would drive them to the local town to buy alcohol and/or drugs and/or cigarettes; e. Invited one or more students into the staff accommodation area; 2. Between September 2016 and April 2021 he made one or more inappropriate comments to Pupil A, saying: a. “you should be a model” or words to that effect; b. “you are my favourite” or words to that effect; c. “I love you” or words to that effect; d. “you look beautiful” or words to that effect; e. “you looked stunning last night”, the day after a formal dinner, or words to that effect; f. “the more time I spend with you, the better”, or words to that effect; g. “as long as I’ve spoken with you, my day is the best”, or words to that effect; h. “the high of my days are when I am with you”, or words to that effect; i. “you do not realise how much you mean to me”, or words to that effect; j. he would “kill someone if they hurt [Pupil A]”, or words to that effect; k. he was “glad” that she had failed her maths exam so that he could spend more time together, or words to that effect; l. he was “scared to lose” her and/or Pupil B, or words to that effect; m. he had arranged a charity walking event so that he could “spend more time with [Pupil A and/or Pupil B]”, or words to that effect; n. Telling Pupil A not to tell anyone about his interactions and/or comments; 5 3. Between September 2016 and April 2021 in relation to Pupil B, he: a. on one or more occasions stared at her body while she exercised; b. complimented her about her gym wear; c. suggested that they both attempt a variety of yoga poses that required close physical contact; d. told her that he was “scared to lose” her and/or Pupil A; e. told her that he had arranged a charity walking event so that he could spend more time with Pupil A and/or Pupil B; 4. In or around March 2021 he shared inappropriate song lyrics that he had written with Pupil A via ‘Google Docs’, in the form of or similar to those at Schedule A. 5. On or around 16 March 2021 he told Pupil A that the song lyrics at Schedule A were written about Pupil A; 6. On one or more occasions between September 2018 and March 2021 he made intentional physical contact with the knee and/or leg of Pupil A and/or Pupil B when sat alongside and/or opposite them during a lesson; 7. In or around December 2020 he invited Pupil A and/or Pupil B to his home without good reason; 8. Between 2019 and April 2021, he gave gifts to Pupil A by handing them to her at School, or by arranging for packages and/or gifts to be sent from Amazon to the home address of Pupil A; 9. On or around 21 April 2021 he received a formal warning from the police not to contact Pupil A and/or Pupil B following a complaint of harassment; 10. His conduct as may be found proved in relation to any or all of paragraphs 1-8 was sexually motivated. The teacher verbally admitted allegations 1a, 4 and 5. The teacher denied the remainder of the allegations. The teacher did not admit unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Hearsay evidence The presenting officer applied to admit correspondence with Pupil B in relation to her attendance at the proceedings, contained together with the evidence of Pupil B, in a ‘hearsay bundle’. Thereafter, the presenting officer applied to admit Pupil B’s evidence as hearsay evidence. The legal adviser advised the panel that there was further hearsay evidence within the bundle, including statements taken from students and a boarding assistant during the 6 School’s investigation relating to allegation 1. The panel was advised that it should also consider the admissibility of such hearsay evidence, prior to deciding what weight to attach to such evidence. Under paragraph 5.33 of the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020 (the “Procedures”), the panel may admit any evidence, where it is fair to do so, which may reasonably be considered to be relevant to the case. The panel was satisfied that the documents were relevant to the case. The panel noted that, in relation to the witness statement of Pupil B and exhibits, Pupil B was a student at the School and a witness to the allegations in relation to Pupil A, as well as Pupil B. In relation to the statements taken from the students and a boarding assistant during the School’s internal investigation into the incidents, the panel noted that the students were witnesses to the allegations as set out in allegation 1. The central question for the panel was whether it was fair in the circumstances to allow evidence to be put forward by the presenting officer without the opportunity for the witness to be cross-examined by the teacher. The panel took account of the efforts made to secure the attendance of Pupil B and concluded that the presenting officer’s firm and the TRA had made a number of attempts to contact Pupil B and secure their attendance. Pupil B had firmly stated that they stood behind their statement and did not want to attend the hearing. Pupil B had also expressed that attending the hearing would have [REDACTED]. The presenting officer also stated that Pupil B was [REDACTED] to be able to compel them to give evidence. The panel concluded that no efforts had been made to secure the attendance of the pupils and boarding assistants who had given statements to the School in relation to allegation 1. The panel had regard to the seriousness of the allegations in this case, and that it was open to the panel to recommend prohibition in this case if the allegations were found proven. The panel also considered the importance of the evidence and whether it constituted a critical part of the evidence against the teacher. The panel noted that Pupil B’s evidence was that of a key witness to a central allegation in this case. The panel also noted that while the statements of the students and boarding assistant in relation to allegation 1 were key to a central allegation in this case, no individual statement was the sole and decisive evidence. Photographs of the incident had also been provided. There was no suggestion that the witnesses had reason to fabricate their allegations. Furthermore, the teacher would have the opportunity to cross-examine the investigating officers in the course of the School’s two investigations, in order to test the reliability of the witness statements. 7 In the circumstances, given that considerable efforts had been made to secure the attendance of Pupil B and also that no individual hearsay statement in relation to allegation 1 was the sole and decisive evidence in support of allegation 1, the panel decided that there were sufficient safeguards to protect the teacher against any unfairness caused by being unable to cross-examine the witnesses. The panel was to be provided with a hearsay warning in due course, and would be able to determine what weight, if any it should attach to the evidence. With regard to the overall question of fairness, Pupil B’s statement and the statements of other students and boarding assistants were provided to the teacher in line with the timeframes as set out in the Procedures. The teacher was present at the hearing at the outset and had the opportunity to make representations as to whether the statements and exhibits should be included in the bundle, but raised no objections. By reason of the above, the panel