Mr Matthew Kenny

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 Kenny

Location teacher worked: Derbyshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 to 20 September 2024 and 23 September 2024

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 Matthew Kenny, formerly employed in Derbyshire, 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.

Mr Mathew Kenny: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 9 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 22 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Mathew Kenny TRA reference: 20699 Date of determination: 23 September 2024 Former employer: Allestree Woodlands School, Derby Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 16 to 20 September 2024 at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT and on 23 September 2024 by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Mathew Kenny. The panel members were Ms Amanda Godfrey (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Richard Young (lay panellist) and Mrs Pam Thompson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Graham Miles of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Kenny was present and was represented by Mr Steve Lloyd of the NASUWT. The hearing took place in public, save for a limited part of the evidence of Mr Kenny, which was heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 3 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Mathew Kenny was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst working as a Teacher at Allestree Woodlands School: 1. In or around November 2018, in relation to Pupil A, he: a. called her a “hoe”, and/or b. told her to “keep her legs closed” or words to that effect. 2. On an unknown date in around 2018, in response to a question from a pupil he said “I don’t think you guys realise how hairy I am under here!” or words to that effect”. 3. On an unknown date in around 2018, he made one or more inappropriate comment(s) to Pupil C who has a lisp. 4. On an unknown date around 2018 to 2019 he stood at the front of the classroom and bent down to look under the tables, so as to look at all the girls’ skirts. He proceeded to comment on the shortness of the girls’ skirts. 5. On an unknown date in around 2018 he wrote an inappropriate comments post on social media including the following post, which said: “Today the sweetest [REDACTED] boy was showing me how he can make his tongue vibrate! He has no idea just how popular he will be in a few years time !!!” 6. On an unknown date in around 2018, he took a picture of a student’s phone case on his personal phone, when: a. the phone case had a photograph of three students on it; and/or b. the phone case had a photograph of a Muslim student without her headscarf on. 7. In December 2019 he engaged in physical contact with pupils during a lesson: a. without justification/ good reason and/or b. did not report this to the necessary member(s) of staff; and/or c. did not report the incident and/or pupil behaviour concerns on SIMS. 5 8. Between 2018 and 2019 he acted inappropriately towards Pupil G on various one or more occasions, in that he: a. sat on her knee; and/or b. touched her hand without reason; and/or c. touched her waist. 9. His conduct was sexual and /or sexually motivated. Mr Kenny admitted the facts alleged in allegations 5, 6a and 7b and c, but denied the other allegations. Mr Kenny also admitted that his conduct in allegation 5 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. Preliminary applications Application to dismiss allegations The panel has considered Mr Lloyd’s application that allegations 1 to 6 should be dismissed on the basis that they were inappropriately referred to the TRA by the School as they were allegations that did not result in Mr Kenny’s dismissal. After hearing submissions from Mr Bridges and receiving legal advice, the panel has determined that allegations 1 to 6 should not be dismissed. The panel was satisfied that that under section 141B of the Education Act 2002, the TRA had jurisdiction to deal with allegations referred to it which did not arise from the dismissal of a teacher or the teacher leaving the school in circumstances in which he might have been dismissed. The panel was also satisfied that there is no time bar on the consideration of allegations. However, the panel will have regard to the fact that the incidents giving rise to the allegations occurred some years ago and the potential impact on the memories of witnesses when considering the evidence presented. Application to admit additional documents The panel considered an application by Mr Lloyd for the admission of additional documents comprising a bundle of late documents with page numbers 1 to 31, an unredacted copy of Exhibit 34 and two additional character references. Mr Bridges did not object to the application. The panel agreed to the admission of these documents. Application to amend allegation Mr Bridges made an application to amend allegation 9 to read: ‘Your conduct in allegation 1 and/or 2 and/or 4 and/or 5 and/or 8 was sexual and/or sexually motivated’. 6 Mr Lloyd did not object to this application. The panel granted the application. The panel was satisfied that no prejudice would be caused to Mr Kenny as the effect of the amendment was to limit to scope of allegation 9. Further applications Application to admit additional documents On Day 3 of the hearing, Mr Lloyd informed the panel that Pupil AH would not be attending the hearing. Mr Lloyd agreed that his written statement could be admitted as hearsay evidence. The panel agreed to admit a small bundle of documents comprising recent correspondence with Pupil AH regarding his attendance. Application to amend allegation On Day 4 of the hearing, prior to Mr Kenny giving evidence, the panel proposed an amendment to allegation 3 to replace the words, ‘Pupil C’ with ‘a pupil’. Mr Bridges and Mr Lloyd did not oppose this, and the amendment was made. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 6 to 8 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 9 to 17 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 18 to 59 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 60 to 366 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 367 to 418 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following documents: • an additional bundle of late papers – pages 1 to 31 • Two additional character references. 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. 7 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 [REDACTED] and [REDACTED], [REDACTED] [REDACTED], Pupil A, Pupil B, Pupil G, Pupil AH [REDACTED] and Mr Mathew Kenny. Two further witnesses had been scheduled to give oral evidence, namely [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] but neither attended. Their written statements were admitted as hearsay evidence with the agreement of the parties. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered this case and reached a decision. Mr Mathew Kenny was employed at Allestree Woodlands School (“the School”) as a Teacher of Maths from September 2005 until March 2022. He became Assistant Head of House at the School in January 2007. It was alleged that, on 12 December 2019, there was an incident during a maths lesson which had involved Mr Kenny having physical contact with two male pupils. Pupils in the class made a video recording of the incident. On 16 December 2019, when attending a cadets meeting, Pupil I, [REDACTED], showed a video of the maths lesson to Pupil S, a [REDACTED]. The cadet officer saw this video, deemed it to be inappropriate and referred the matter to the police. The matter was then referred to the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) as a potential safeguarding concern. On 21 January 2020, [REDACTED], [REDACTED] was appointed by the school as Investigating Officer. During her investigation, [REDACTED] interviewed Pupil I and Pupil S and obtained video clips of the alleged incident. [REDACTED] also interviewed two of the pupils who had been in the maths lesson concerned before interviewing Mr Kenny. Mr Kenny’s explanation was that, during the lesson concerned, several pupils were throwing bottle lids across the classroom, and he was trying to get them to stop. He said that, in the process of picking up the lids, a pupil pushed him to the floor and things got out of hand. It was alleged that Mr Kenny did not make a report of the incident to the relevant member of staff or on SIMS, the School’s management information system. The panel heard that, following [REDACTED] investigation, Mr Kenny was referred for a disciplinary hearing on 28 February 2020, which resulted in Mr Kenny being given a final written warning. On 6 October 2020, it was reported to [REDACTED] by another member of staff that Pupil G had told her that Mr Kenny had previously touched her inappropriately by 8 stroking her hand, touching her waist and sitting on her knee. After reporting this to [REDACTED] was advised to speak to Pupil G to obtain a written statement from her. After speaking to Pupil G and [REDACTED] reported back to [REDACTED] who then appointed [REDACTED], an external investigator, to conduct an investigation. Following [REDACTED] investigation, the matter was referred for a further disciplinary hearing, which was held on 21 September 2021. Mr Kenny was subsequently referred to the TRA. The allegations in these proceedings included those considered during the two previous disciplinary investigations. The allegations at this hearing also included other matters, some of which had previously been considered by the School without any formal disciplinary proceedings. During the hearing, the panel has heard oral evidence from [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], [REDACTED], Pupil A, Pupil B and Pupil G and Mr Mathew Kenny. The panel has also viewed the video recordings of the alleged incident in Mr Kenny’s classroom on 12 December 2019 and considered the written evidence presented. The panel acknowledged that extreme caution was required when considering the memories of witnesses. The panel adopted the approach of testing the evidence of witnesses, in the first instance, by reference to objective facts and, where available, contemporaneous documents. The panel avoided making any initial general assessment of the credibility of any witness by reference to their demeanour and confined its analysis to the specific allegations and consistency or lack of consistency with other evidence. In the absence of contemporaneous documents, the panel felt that it was able to attach some weight, where appropriate, to demeanour. The panel also recognised that it was dealing with matters alleged to have taken place some years ago. The panel made allowances for the fact that, with the passage of time, memories can fade or change. Witnesses, whoever they may be, cannot be expected to remember with crystal clarity, events which occurred many years ago. From the point of view of Mr Kenny, the panel recognised that the longer the time since an alleged incident, the more difficult it may have been for him to answer the allegation. This was considered in Mr Kenny’s favour in deciding whether the allegations against him had been proved on the balance of probabilities. The written evidence before the panel referred to the outcome of the School’s disciplinary proceedings against Mr Kenny. The panel disregarded the findings made in those proceedings and made its own determinations on the evidence presented at this hearing. The panel was also conscious that during this hearing there were some expressions of opinions which were not based upon what the witness concerned observed. The panel accepted the legal advice that opinions of speculative nature should be disregarded. 9 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: It was alleged that you are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, whilst working as a Teacher at Allestree Woodlands School: 1. In or around November 2018, in relation to Pupil A, you: a. called her a “hoe”, Pupil A and Pupil B both gave evidence of an occasion when they were in one of Mr Kenny’s lessons and a group of students were talking about their experiences in primary school. They gave evidence that Pupil A had said that Pupil A had jokingly mentioned that she had lots of boyfriends when she was in primary school and that after she made that comment, Mr Kenny called Pupil B ‘a hoe’. Mr Kenny denied this allegation and said that Pupil A had been talking inappropriately in class over a couple of lessons and talking about having children and messing about with a small doll, which he had taken from her. During his evidence, Mr Kenny produced the small doll which he said was the kind of doll taken from Pupil A. He said that he had heard Pupil A say that she was going to settle down and marry after the 17 th man that she had sex with. Mr Kenny claimed that Pupil A had then said,’ God, I’m such a hoe’ and that he had responded by telling her not to say that. Mr Kenny gave evidence that Pupil A then said, ‘say what?’, to which he replied, ‘That you said you were a hoe’. Mr Kenny said that Pupil A then accused him in the lesson of calling her ‘a hoe’. Both Pupil A and Pupil B gave evidence that they subsequently reported this and other comments that are the subject of allegations 1b, 2 and 3 to [REDACTED] and that, within a week of reporting it, [REDACTED] asked them to write statements about anything inappropriate that Mr Kenny might have said or done. The panel was provided with handwritten statements, which Pupil A and Pupil B identified as statements that they made following [REDACTED] request. However, [REDACTED] was not able to recall being approached by Pupil A or Pupil B in relation to those matters or asking them to make the statements concerned. In her evidence, [REDACTED] said that she had commenced her role as [REDACTED] at the School in September 2019. [REDACTED] said that she had subsequently ‘stumbled across’ the written statements of Pupil A and Pupil B in a filing cabinet, but she had no knowledge of the circumstances in which they were taken or what action, if any, had been taken in relation to those statements. The panel noted that the statements were not dated and that Pupil A and Pupil B said that they had not been made at the time of the incident in allegation 1a. They were not able to say what period of time had passed between the alleged incident and making the statements. They said that, when they were asked to provide written statements, they 10 were not instructed to avoid discussing the events between themselves before writing the statements. The panel felt that Pupil A and Pupil B had both done their best to assist the panel when giving their evidence and it was clear that the word ‘hoe’ had been used in conversation by Mr Kenny. However, there was an absence of any satisfactory contemporaneous documentation and any clarity about when the incident was alleged to have occurred. The School’s failure to ensure that their statements were provided separately undermined the weight that could be given to their individual accounts. When considering the evidence of Pupil A, Pupil B and Mr Kenny about an incident alleged to have occurred approximately six years ago, the panel had to take account of the possible unreliability of memory. The inability to test that oral evidence by reference to any objective facts or satisfactory contemporaneous documents caused the panel to conclude that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities. The panel found 1a not proved. b. told her to “keep her legs closed” or words to that effect. Mr Kenny denied this allegation. Pupil A and Pupil B both gave evidence that they were in one of Mr Kenny’s lessons when a group of pupils, including Pupil A, were talking about having babies. Pupil A said that [REDACTED] and she said that she wanted one. They both said that Mr Kenny had not been involved in this conversation but that he intervened to make the alleged comment. The accounts of Pupil A and Pupil B were broadly consistent, save that Pupil A said that Mr Kenny’s comment had been directed to her individually, whereas Pupil B said that it was a comment made to the group of girls. Pupil A and B said that this was one of the comments that they reported to [REDACTED] and included in the written statements that they provided. Again, the panel felt that Pupil A and Pupil B had both done their best to assist the panel when giving their evidence. However, the same considerations identified in relation to allegation 1a also applied to this allegation. The panel concluded that the evidence presented was not sufficient to prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities. The panel found 1b not proved. 2. On an unknown date in around 2018, in response to a question from a pupil you said “I don’t think you guys realise how hairy I am under here!” or words to that effect”. Mr Kenny denied this allegation. 11 Pupil B gave evidence that, in around 2019, she was in Mr Kenny’s classroom during lunchtime with a group of female pupils, which included Pupil A. Pupil B said that the pupils were playing a game of ‘would you rather’. She said that Pupil AA said to the group, ‘would you rather eat a bag of your hair or a bag of your toenails?’ Pupil B said that Mr Kenny overheard this and responded by saying, ‘I don’t think you guys realise how hairy I am under here’. Pupil B said that everyone was taken aback by this comment and laughed awkwardly. She said that she had felt uncomfortable about the comment. Pupil B said that she immediately went to the toilet to use her phone and ring her mother to tell her about the comment that Mr Kenny had made. Pupil B said that her mother then told her that she should report this to a member of staff. Pupil B said that she then went to [REDACTED] to report what Mr Kenny has said. Pupil B said that, during the course of that week, [REDACTED] then pulled her and Pupil A out of a drama lesson to ask them to provide written statements. Mr Kenny said that he could recall Pupil AA, Pupil AB and Pupil C bursting into his room and asking him, ‘Sir would you rather eat a bag of your toenails or eat all the hair from off your body’. He said that he replied that they did not know how hairy his body was so that they could not ask a logical question like that. Although there were some factual differences between Mr Kenny’s account of the incident and those of Pupil A and Pupil B, he acknowledged that he had used the words alleged or words to that effect. The panel found allegation 2 proved. 3. On an unknown date in around 2018, you made one or more inappropriate comment(s) to a pupil who has a lisp. Mr Kenny denied this allegation. Pupil A gave evidence that, during a maths lesson she was one of a group of pupils talking about what they wanted to do when they left school. Pupil A said that one of the other pupils in the group, Pupil C, mentioned that she wanted to be an English teacher. Pupil A said that, although Mr Kenny had not been involved in this discussion, he said that she would never be an English teacher due to her lisp. Pupil B said in her evidence that she was in a maths lesson when a group of pupils were talking about what they wanted to do when they left school and Pupil C said that she wanted to be an English teacher. Pupil B said that Mr Kenny then intervened by telling Pupil C that she would not be successful as an English teacher. Pupil B’s recollection was that Mr Kenny said to Pupil C, ‘you can’t even speak English properly, so how are you going to teach it’. Pupil B said that Mr Kenny then started laughing. Pupil B said that she appreciated that Mr Kenny may not have meant to be malicious towards Pupil C, but he did not seem to realise how uncomfortable everyone felt as a result of his comment. 12 Mr Kenny’s position was that the pupil with a lisp was not Pupil C, but Pupil AC. However, it was accepted by him that he had been present when pupils had been discussing what they wanted to do when leaving school and that during that conversation the pupil with a lisp (which he believed was Pupil AC) said that she wanted to teach English. During his oral evidence, Mr Kenny accepted that he had then said to the pupil concerned, ‘You can’t even speak English properly.’ Mr Kenny claimed that he had been involved in an earlier conversation with the pupil concerned when she had tried to say a word or phrase, but it had come out wrong; like a spoonerism. Mr Kenny said that he and the pupil concerned had laughed about this at that time. He said that when he made the comment about the pupil not being able to speak English properly, he was referring to her earlier mispronunciation rather than her lisp. Nevertheless, the panel regarded the comment as inappropriate on the basis that it was a discouraging comment for a teacher to have made, which could have been demoralising to the pupil concerned. Although there were some contextual differences between Mr Kenny’s account of the incident and those of Pupil A and Pupil B, he acknowledged that he had used the words alleged. The panel found allegation 3 proved. 4. On an unknown date around 2018 to 2019 you stood at the front of the classroom and bent down to look under the tables, so as to look at all the girls’ skirts. You proceeded to comment on the shortness of the girls’ skirts. Mr Kenny denied this allegation. Pupil G gave evidence that, on various occasions when she was in Year 8, Mr Kenny would stand at the front of the classroom and bend down to look under all the tables. She said that he did this to look at the girls’ skirts and that he would often tell female pupils that their skirts were too short. Pupil G said that this made her feel uncomfortable. Pupil G said that this occurred when she was in Year 8, which would have been in the academic year commencing in September 2018. Despite this, her concerns about Mr Kenny were not raised until October 2020. [REDACTED] said that, on 6 October 2020, she was approached by another teacher, [REDACTED] regarding the concerns. The panel was also provided with a copy of a note made by [REDACTED] about the disclosure made to her by Pupil G on 6 October 2020. The note said that, on that date, [REDACTED] was having a restorative conversation with Pupil G in the corridor. Pupil G acknowledged that she had been asked to leave the classroom because she had been misbehaving. Ms Bushby’s note stated that during her conversation with Pupil G, Mr Kenny walked past them into his classroom, at which point Pupil G said she did not want Mr Kenny coming near her as he used to ‘touch her’ when she was in his class in her Year 8. Ms Bushby’s note referred to Pupil G saying that Mr Kenny had stroked her hand and put his hand on the waistband of her skirt. 13 [REDACTED] said that, after [REDACTED] reported Pupil G’s conversation to her, she spoke to [REDACTED], who advised her to speak to Pupil G to obtain a statement. [REDACTED] said that she spoke to Pupil G on 7 October 2020 and the panel was provided with her note of that meeting. This referred to Pupil G’s account of the matters alleged in allegation 8a, b and c. The panel noted that no reference was made by Pupil G to the allegation that Mr Kenny had looked under tables. [REDACTED] said that, after reporting back to [REDACTED] a decision was made to appoint an external investigator, Ms Matilda Swanson. The panel noted that the allegation of looking under tables was also not dealt with in [REDACTED] investigation. In her oral evidence, Pupil G was taken to some posts that had been made by an unknown person or persons on a social media site called ‘Woodlandshitshow’. These posts contained rumours about Mr Kenny and other members of staff including a post dated 21 August 2019. Pupil G confirmed that she had seen this and other posts about Mr Kenny, but she did not think that they had influenced her evidence. However, the panel acknowledged that these posts and rumours had the potential to change her perception of earlier events. The panel noted that there was no evidence other than Pupil G’s account of what she said happened on an unknown date or dates in 2018. Despite raising concerns about Mr Kenny in the context of her meeting with [REDACTED] on 7 October 2020, those concerns did not include the allegation that Mr Kenny had looked under desks. The panel concluded that the evidence presented was not sufficient to find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. The panel found allegation 4 not proved. 5. On an unknown date in around 2018 you wrote an inappropriate post on social media including the following post, which said: “Today the sweetest year 9 boy was showing me how he can make his tongue vibrate! He has no idea just how popular he will be in a few years time !!!” Mr Kenny admitted this allegation. The panel was provided with a screenshot of the Facebook message concerned. [REDACTED] said in her evidence that she had seen the message at the time as she was a Facebook friend of Mr Kenny. Mr Kenny accepted that he had posted a message on this Facebook group, which was comprised of other staff at the School. He gave an explanation that he had been concerned that someone in the group was reporting him and trying to get him into trouble. He said he sent the message as a means of identifying them. 14 The panel was not convinced by this explanation, but did agree with Mr Kenny’s own description that sending the message was ‘a misjudgement’ and ‘wrong’. The panel was satisfied that the message was inappropriate. The panel found allegation 5 proved. 6. On an unknown date in around 2018, you took a picture of a student’s phone case on your personal phone, when: a. the phone case had a photograph of three students on it; and/or b. the phone case had a photograph of a Muslim student without her headscarf on. Mr Kenny admitted allegation 6a, but he denied 6b. Mr Kenny admitted that he had taken a photograph of the phone case, but he denied 6b on the basis that he was not aware that one of the girls in the photo was a Muslim pupil who normally wore a headscarf. [REDACTED] gave evidence that, at some point during the academic year 2017 to 2018, she was approached by Pupil AO, a female student who was in [REDACTED] at the time. Pupil AO informed her that Mr Kenny had used his personal phone to take a photo of her phone case. [REDACTED] said that it was a clear phone case with a photo slotted in between the phone and the case. Pupil AO said that the phone had been in Mr Kenny’s classroom and was plugged into the wall to charge. Mr Kenny said in his evidence that it was his charger on his desk that was being used without his knowledge or permission. The photo that was visible in the phone case was of three girls who were pupils at the School. It appeared to [REDACTED] that the photo had been taken in a photo booth. Pupil AO informed [REDACTED] that one of the girls in the photo was a Muslim and she was not wearing her headscarf at the time the photo was taken. [REDACTED] said that she then raised these concerns with [REDACTED], the [REDACTED] at that time. She said that Mr Brady asked her to investigate this, although she did not regard this as a formal investigation. [REDACTED] said that she then spoke to the three female pupils in the photograph. They were upset that Mr Kenny had taken a photograph on his phone. She said that they were particularly annoyed because they had been told that Mr Kenny had shown the photograph to a male pupil. [REDACTED] said that she could not recall if she had spoken to the male pupil concerned and no evidence was presented to the panel from that pupil. [REDACTED] recollection was that she had asked the three girls to provide written statements about the incident, but she could not recall whether these were passed on to [REDACTED]. She was now unable to locate those statements. [REDACTED] said that she subsequently met with Mr Kenny, but she could not recall the date when she had done so. She said that Mr Kenny told her that he had taken a photo of the phone so that he could work out who the phone belonged to so that he could return 15 it. [REDACTED] also said that she told Mr Kenny that it was not appropriate for him to have taken a photograph of the phone. She said that she told Mr Kenny to delete the photo on his phone, which he did in front of her. [REDACTED] said that Mr Kenny told her that he was not aware that one of the girls in the photo usually wore a headscarf and [REDACTED] said she accepted this explanation. [REDACTED] did not believe that she had asked Mr Kenny to provide a written statement at the time. She said that in the summer term of 2017/18 an informal meeting was held with [REDACTED], Mr Kenny and his union representative. [REDACTED] attended to take notes at the request of [REDACTED]. The panel was provided with a copy of the notes of that meeting, which included reference to [REDACTED] making it clear that there was an issue with Mr Kenny’s behaviour which had to stop. [REDACTED] said that the entry which read, ‘we have 12 months of no issues’, was intended to be a reference to Mr Kenny being advised that there should be no further issues in the period of 12 months that followed that meeting. [REDACTED] said she had no further involvement. Based on Mr Kenny’s admissions and the other evidence referred to, the panel was satisfied that Mr Kenny had taken a picture of the phone case concerned and that the phone case did have a photograph of a Muslim pupil without her headscarf. However, although this was sufficient to prove the facts alleged in 6a and 6b, the panel was not satisfied by the evidence presented that Mr Kenny was aware that one of the pupils was a Muslim pupil. The panel found 6a and b proved. 7. In December 2019 you engaged in physical contact with pupils during a lesson: a. without justification/good reason Mr Kenny denied this allegation. His position was that he did not engage in physical contact with the pupils concerned without justification or good reason. He maintained that he was initially assaulted by the pupils and that he was struggling to restore order. [REDACTED] gave evidence that she was appointed by [REDACTED] to conduct an investigation into this allegation after it was drawn to the attention of the School by the LADO. [REDACTED] said that, as part of her investigation, she spoke to the two pupils who had attended the cadets meeting when the video recordings of the lesson had been shared. Through this process, she obtained four videos in total, the longest of which had a duration of 34 seconds. [REDACTED] then spoke to Pupil M and Pupil N. They were both pupils in Mr Kenny’s lesson, which she established was on 12 December 2019. [REDACTED] made the following record of the account given to her by Pupil N: ‘The three boys… started throwing bottle lids at each other, she thought they had about 6. They kept landing on the floor by sir and the first three bottle lids, sir kept bending 16 down and grabbing them and putting them in the bin. This is not unusual as sir does not have control of the class. Another bottle top was thrown and sir went to grab it and so did Pupil J this happened 2 or 4 times. On the 4 th time both went to grab it and Pupil K joined in. Then the boys started throwing lids at sir, as all three went to grab the lid, sir ended up on the floor. Everyone started laughing and it happened again. The second time Pupil K was trying to get it off sir, Pupil J stood on the table and jumped on Mr Kenny’s back crashing in the blinds and his plant fell over and sir’s stand almost fell down. At the end of the lesson sir kept the whole class back and said “This was a one time thing, I hope no one recorded that”. He then noticed a few students had their phones out and he said, “You have to delete that”. The panel viewed the four video recordings obtained by [REDACTED] as part of her investigation. Mr Kenny’s interpretation of the correct order of the video recordings showed Mr Kenny on the floor in the first of the videos. Pupil N’s account of the lesson was that Mr Kenny ended up on the floor after Pupil J and Pupil K started to throw lids at Mr Kenny. The panel noted that another video showed Mr Kenny getting up from the floor and returning to his position by the stand from which he was teaching. The longest video recording then showed a further altercation which involved one of the pupils jumping on Mr Kenny’s back. There was a short gap between the final two recordings which made it difficult for the panel to understand the full sequence of events. The panel took into account Mr Kenny’s assertions that the physical contact was initiated by the pupils concerned. This was supported to some extent by the video recordings. The panel considered whether there were any opportunities in the altercation that would have enabled Mr Kenny to regain control of the class without any further physical contact. However, the incident demonstrated a fundamental breakdown of appropriate behaviour management. The incidents took place in a very short period of time; approximately 45 seconds was the total length of the four recordings. Based on the evidence of the recordings, the panel was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Kenny had the opportunity to regain control without further physical contact. The panel found 7a not proved. b. did not report this to the necessary member(s) of staff; c. did not report the incident and/or pupil behaviour concerns on SIMS. Mr Kenny admitted 7b and c. When interviewed by [REDACTED] as part of her investigation, Mr Kenny acknowledged that he may have made some poor errors of judgement, but he provided information about a number of exceptionally difficult personal circumstances to put in context his state of mind on the day of the lesson. 17 In his written statement for this hearing. Mr Kenny acknowledged that he should have reported the incident to the SLT and gone through the usual behaviour protocols. His rationale for not doing so was that he felt at the time that he had contained the situation. However, the panel felt that this rationale conflicted with his assertions that he had been assaulted by the pupils concerned. In not reporting the incident, the School was unable to take appropriate action in relation to the behaviour of the pupils directly involved or provide supportive action towards other pupils or Mr Kenny. The panel also noted that, one of the consequences of not reporting the incident was that the matter was reported to the police and the LADO before the School had any knowledge of what had taken place. Senior leaders were very concerned that this unreported incident risked bringing the School into disrepute. The panel found 7b and c proved. 8. Between 2018 and 2019 you acted inappropriately towards Pupil G on various one or more occasions, in that you: a. sat on her knee; and/or b. touched her hand without reason; and/or c. touched her waist. Pupil G gave evidence in relation to these allegations, which she said all occurred during Year 8 lessons with Mr Kenny. As already noted in relation to allegation 4, Pupil G did not raise these concerns with [REDACTED] until she was in Year 10. Pupil G said that the first occasion when there was contact from Mr Kenny was when he stroked her hand as alleged in 8b. Pupil G said that, as he walked past her table, Mr Kenny stroked the top of her hand and carried on walking. She did not know why he had done this, and he did not say anything to her, but it made her feel uncomfortable. Pupil G said that she gave him a look of disgust at the time, which she thought had deterred him from doing it again. However, Pupil G said that the incident in which she alleged that he sat on her knee in allegation 6a occurred shortly after the incident in which he had stroked her hand. Pupil G said that her knees were not under her desk at the time as she was turning around to talk to a pupil behind her. She said that Mr Kenny then sat on her knee, but didn’t say anything to her. Pupil G said that she pushed him off and called him ‘a weirdo’. Pupil G said that she did not know why Mr Kenny had done this, but that he may have thought that he was being funny as she recalled him trying to laugh it off. The panel was provided with a copy of a written statement given by [REDACTED] as part of the investigation by [REDACTED]. [REDACTED] was Pupil G’s form tutor. In this 18 statement dated 26 October 2020, [REDACTED] said that, a couple of years earlier, Pupil G said that there was a situation in which Mr Kenny had pretended to lower himself onto Pupil G’s lap, but he did not actually sit on her lap. [REDACTED] said that the whole class would have been present and that nobody complained about it as it was treated as a joke. As regards 8c, Pupil G said that there was another occasion in Year 8 when she was leaning towards the table in front of her. As Mr Kenny walked past her, he squeezed her waist. Mr Kenny did not say anything to her at the time. She did not think that he was doing it so an attempt to get past her, but it may have been because he did not like her leaning over the desk. Pupil G said that, at the time she turned to look at Mr Kenny and said, ‘what are you doing?’. She could not recall what he said, but she believed that he tried to laugh it off. The panel was also provided with a statement of Pupil AH dated 8 July 2023. In this statement he said that that in around Easter 2018 he was in one of Mr Kenny’s lessons and was sitting on the same table as Pupil G. He said that, as Mr Kenny was walking past their table, Mr Kenny stroked Pupil G’s hand. He said that Mr Kenny was looking at Pupil G, but then looked away as he continued to walk around the classroom. Pupil AH said in his statement that this was a one-off incident. He did not recall this happening on any other occasion. His statement also referred to occasions when he said Mr Kenny would walk behind Pupil G and stroke her back, although this was not something that Pupil G alleged. Pupil AH said that Mr Kenny was quite tactile and would also stroke other pupils’ backs. Pupil AH had been scheduled to attend the hearing to give oral evidence. However, he declined to do so, and the panel was provided with email correspondence with him in which he also declined the invitation to give evidence by virtual means. Given that Pupil AH had not provided any statement in this matter until more than five years after the alleged incident, it would have been particularly important for the panel to be able to test his evidence by questioning. In the absence of Pupil AH, the panel felt unable to place any weight on his written statement. Aside from this hearsay evidence of Pupil AH, there was no other evidence to support Pupil G’s account of events. In his own evidence, Mr Kenny denied acting as alleged by Pupil G, and also denied being a tactile person. In her evidence, [REDACTED] said that Mr Kenny could be quite tactile with pupils, and she gave the example of observing him touching pupils on the shoulder to move them along, which she was not suggesting was inappropriate. As mentioned in relation to allegation 4, Pupil G confirmed that she had seen posts and heard rumours about Mr Kenny between her attending Mr Kenny’s lessons in Year 8 and reporting her concerns when she was in Year 10. The panel acknowledged that these posts and rumours had the potential to change her perception of earlier events. 19 The panel noted Mr Kenny’s evidence that he avoids physical contact with other people was in conflict with the evidence of others who described him as more tactile than other teachers. However, after careful consideration of all evidence presented, the panel concluded that the evidence was not sufficient to find that Mr Kenny had touched Pupil G inappropriately as alleged. The panel found 8a, b and c not proved. 9. Your conduct in paragraph 1 and/or 2 and/or 4 and/or 5 and/or 8 was sexual and /or sexually motivated. The panel considered whether the conduct found proved in allegations 2 and 5 was sexual or sexually motivated. As to sexual motivation, in his closing submissions, Mr Bridges confirmed that the TRA did not assert that any of the conduct was in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. Accordingly, the panel only had to consider whether Mr Kenny’s conduct was sexually motivated on the basis that it was for his sexual gratification. The panel was not satisfied that it was possible to infer such a motive from the evidence presented in relation to allegations 2 or 5. Accordingly, sexual motivation had not been proved. As to whether the conduct in allegations 2 and 5 was sexual, the panel considered whether a reasonable person would view the conduct as sexual because of its nature and all the circumstances, including Mr Kenny’s purpose in relation to it. In relation to allegation 2, Mr Kenny’s comment was inappropriate and ill-judged. However, the panel was not satisfied that the comment was sexual in nature or because of any of the surrounding circumstances. As regards allegation 5, as Mr Kenny himself admitted in his evidence, the comment was an innuendo relating to oral sex. On that basis, the comment was clearly sexual in nature. Accordingly, allegation 9 was proved, but limited to a finding that the conduct in allegation 5 was sexual in nature. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found allegations 2, 3, 5, 6a and b and 7b and c proven, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proven allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 20 In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Kenny, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Kenny was in breach of the following standards:  Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.  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 whether Mr Kenny’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 10 and 11 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that none of these offences was relevant. In relation to allegations 2 and 3, although the panel found that each of the comments made in the presence and hearing of the pupils was inappropriate and ill-judged, the panel was not satisfied that either comment could be regarded as misconduct of a serious nature falling significantly short of the standard expected of a teacher. In relation to allegation 5, Mr Kenny admitted that this conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel took this admission into account, but made its own determination based on the evidence presented. Although the Facebook post was inappropriate and sexual in nature, the panel did not find it to be of sufficient gravity to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. In making this determination, the panel had regard to the fact that it was a single Facebook post sent to a limited group of individuals, who were all staff at the school. There was no evidence that the post was sent to or seen by a member of the public. In relation to allegations 6a and 6b, the panel thought that Mr Kenny might have dealt with the position in relation to the phone in a different manner. However, the panel also 21 had regard to the absence of any School policy which clearly addressed the situation that Mr Kenny found himself in. It was also significant that the evidence presented did not establish that Mr Kenny was aware the one of the pupils in the photograph was a Muslim student. Taking these factors into account, the panel was not satisfied that the conduct in 6a and 6b amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. As regards allegations 7b and c the panel was satisfied that Mr Kenny’s failure to make any report of the incident amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standard expected of the profession. In not reporting the incident, the School was unable to take appropriate action in relation to the behaviour of the pupils directly involved or provide supportive action towards other pupils or Mr Kenny. In not giving the School the opportunity to deal with the incident in a timely manner, Mr Kenny brought the School into disrepute. In relation to whether Mr Kenny’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. The panel did not consider the findings in allegations 2, 3, 5, 6a and b to be serious misconduct. It did not consider that the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on Mr Kenny’s status as a teacher or would potentially damage the public perception. The panel, therefore, did not find that Mr Kenny’s actions in allegations 2, 3, 5, 6a and b constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. However, the findings of misconduct in relation to 7b and c are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on Mr Kenny’s status as a teacher, potentially damaging the public perception. Accordingly, the panel did find that Mr Kenny’s actions in allegations 7b and c constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In conclusion, the panel found that Mr Kenny’s conduct in allegations 7b and c amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to 22 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 should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the failure to report serious misbehaviour which could have compromised the safety of other pupils, and which had led to physical contact between him and some pupils. The failure to report the breakdown of control in the classroom compromised the ability to create a safe learning environment. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Kenny were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Kenny was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Kenny in the profession. The panel decided that there was a public interest in retaining Mr Kenny in the profession as he is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession as a specialist Maths teacher, as recognised by the offer of a permanent post at the school at which he is currently working. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Kenny. In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Kenny. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: 23  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils;  collusion or concealment including: o failure to challenge inappropriate actions, defending inappropriate actions or concealing inappropriate actions; Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. As to whether Mr Kenny’s conduct was deliberate, although the panel was provided with evidence of Mr Kenny’s subsequent [REDACTED], the expert evidence did not make clear whether this impacted on his failure to report the incident, but did suggest that he might struggle with a noisy environment. The panel noted that he is now working in another school without any adjustments to support him. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Kenny was acting under duress. However, the panel did take note of the very difficult personal circumstances that Mr Kenny experienced at the time of the incident. Although this did not excuse his conduct, it was relevant to the panel’s assessment of whether the conduct was likely to be repeated. The panel was aware of previous investigations by the School, but noted that Mr Kenny has not been the subject of any previous regulatory proceedings. The panel was provided with several references in relation to Mr Kenny’s recent teaching at two different schools. A reference from the [REDACTED] at Christ the King Academy, where Mr Kenny worked from September 2023 until May 2024 said that there were no safeguarding concerns during his time at that school. The Lead Practitioner in Mathematics at that school also provided a reference in which he said: ‘Mat is used to the policies and systems within the school and uses the Care system appropriately to praise and discipline students’. A reference from [REDACTED] at Shirebrook Academy, where Mr Kenny has worked from June 2024, stated: ‘Mat has shown a high degree of professionalism and commitment in the role of Mathematics Teacher. Feedback from teachers that work closely with Mat praise his collegiality, his subject knowledge and the professional relationships that he builds with students. Mat shows due regard to the teachers’ standards and displays these each day in his practice. He is enthusiastic, committed and resilient and students report that they enjoy his maths lessons. There have been no concerns raised about any aspect of his practice during his time with us. Mat’s 24 contribution to the learning, teaching and development of students at Shirebrook Academy is highly regarded and he is a valued member of our team. His integrity, work ethic and dedication are clearly evident.’ The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of sanction. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found some of the allegations proven and found that some of those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven, and/or found that some allegations do not amount to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute. I have, therefore, put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that in this case the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Mathew Kenny is in breach of the following standards: 25 • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Kenny fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher failing to follow the proper processes to report an incident of bad behaviour which compromised the safety of pupils. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Kenny, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel observes that: “There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the failure to report serious misbehaviour which could have compromised the safety of other pupils, and which had led to physical contact between him and some pupils. The failure to report the breakdown of control in the classroom compromised the ability to create a safe learning environment.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. 26 I have also taken into account the evidence considered by the panel in respect of Mr Kenny’s insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “When interviewed by [REDACTED] as part of her investigation, Mr Kenny acknowledged that he may have made some poor errors of judgement, but he provided information about a number of exceptionally difficult personal circumstances to put in context his state of mind on the day of the lesson. In his written statement for this hearing. Mr Kenny acknowledged that he should have reported the incident to the SLT and gone through the usual behaviour protocols. His rationale for not doing so was that he felt at the time that he had contained the situation. However, the panel felt that this rationale conflicted with his assertions that he had been assaulted by the pupils concerned. In not reporting the incident, the School was unable to take appropriate action in relation to the behaviour of the pupils directly involved or provide supportive action towards other pupils or Mr Kenny.” In my judgement, the fact that Mr Kenny has demonstrated some insight into his behaviour and how he had fallen short in terms of the judgment he exercised means that there is a limited risk of repetition. I have therefore given this element weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observes that: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Kenny were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Kenny himself. He has subsequently secured work teaching and the panel records the following: “The panel decided that there was a public interest in retaining Mr Kenny in the profession as he is able to make a valuable contribution to the profession as a 27 specialist Maths teacher, as recognised by the offer of a permanent post at the School at which he is currently working.” The panel also note character evidence attesting to Mr Kenny’s professionalism and commitment to his pupils. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Kenny from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s concluding remarks: “The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession.” In particular, I have noted the panel’s comments regarding the relative severity of the misconduct found and the mitigating factors in this case, as well as the continuing contribution that Mr Kenny is making to the teaching profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to Mr Kenny as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 25 September 2024 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.