Mr Matthew Thring

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 Thring

Teacher reference number: 1587163

Teacher's date of birth: 5 December 1992

Location teacher worked: Southampton, South East England.

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 July 2023

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 Thring, formerly employed in Southampton, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Matthew Thring: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Matthew Thring Teacher ref number: 1587163 Teacher date of birth: 5 December 1992 TRA reference: 20798 Date of determination: 14 July 2023 Former employer: Fareham Academy, Hampshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 14 July 2023 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Matthew Thring. The panel members were Mrs Bev Williams (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Neil Hillman (teacher panellist) and Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Samantha Cass of Birketts LLP 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 Thring that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Thring 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 Louise Murphy-King of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors, Mr Thring or any representative for Mr Thring. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 16 June 2023. It was alleged that Mr Thring was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as an English and Media teacher at Fareham Academy: 1. Between around February 2022 and April 2022, he behaved in an inappropriate manner in relation to Pupil A, in that he: a. gave her his telephone number; b. gave her his home address; c. exchanged messages via Whatsapp; d. hugged her on one or more occasions; e. gave her chocolate and/or a card and/or a pencil case; f. said that he “really enjoy her company”, or words to that effect; and g. shared information about your personal life. Mr Thring admitted the facts of allegations 1(a)-(g) and that his behaviour amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, as set out in the response to the notice of proceedings dated 6 March 2023 and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Thring on 29 April 2023. 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, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 7 to 21A • S ection 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 22 to 25 5 • Section 4: TRA documents – pages 26 to 166 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 167 to 187 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Thring on 29 April 2023 and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 3 May 2023. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Thring 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. Mr Thring commenced employment as an English and Media teacher at Fareham Academy (‘the School’) on 20 June 2016. He was later promoted to head of English on 2 March 2021. In April 2022, Mr Thring allegedly gave his telephone number to Pupil A and exchanged messages. Mother B raised a safeguarding concern to the School on 25 April 2022. On 24 May 2022, Mr Thring was invited to a disciplinary investigation meeting. He was due to return to the eastern police investigation centre on 26 May 2022. An investigation meeting was held on 17 June 2022 and, on 7 July 2022, Mr Thring was invited to a disciplinary meeting. The meeting was held on 15 July 2022. Mr Thring was informed of the outcome of the disciplinary meeting on 22 July 2022. Mr Thring’s employment ceased on 23 July 2022. On 26 September 2022, Hampshire police confirmed that their investigation resulted in no further action. Hampshire police referred the matter to the TRA on 9 November 2022. 6 F indings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between around February 2022 and April 2022, you behaved in an inappropriate manner in relation to Pupil A, in that you: a. gave her your telephone number; b. gave her your home address; c. exchanged messages via Whatsapp; d. hugged her on one or more occasions; e. gave her chocolate and/or a card and/or a pencil case; f. said that you “really enjoy her company”, or words to that effect; and g. shared information about your personal life. The panel noted that in the response to the notice of proceedings dated 6 March 2023 and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Thring on 29 April 2023, Mr Thring admitted allegations 1(a)-(g). The panel also considered the admissions in Mr Thring’s Statement of April 2023. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based upon the evidence available to it. Mr Thring admitted that during the week before Easter, when Pupil A asked for his mobile phone number, he put it on a piece of paper and told Pupil A to use it should they need to. Mr Thring also admitted that he showed Pupil A his home address. Between approximately 5 April 2022 and 25 April 2022, Mr Thring admitted that he exchanged messages with Pupil A via WhatsApp. Mr Thring further admitted that he hugged Pupil A when she was upset (redacted). He also admitted that he purchased and gave Pupil A a pencil case, chocolate and a card/postcard. Whilst in his classroom, he told Pupil A that he really enjoyed her company and shared information about his personal life, namely that he had not seen his father for three years; he rents his house as he cannot afford to buy it; and that he was going to the pub and/or that he might be a bit drunk. 7 The panel found allegations 1(a)-(g) proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 Thring, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Thring 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; and 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Thring fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel also considered whether Mr Thring’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The panel found that Mr Thring had displayed controlling or coercive behaviour in particular with regard to the way in which Mr Thring had communicated with Pupil A. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is more likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. 8 The panel noted that allegation 1(c) took place outside the education setting. However, given that Pupil A was a current pupil of Mr Thring, the panel believed that Mr Thring’s actions touched upon this profession as a teacher. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Thring was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. The panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others and 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 they behave. The findings of misconduct were