Mr Paul Jones

Teacher's name: Mr Paul Jones

Teacher reference number: 1282288

Teacher's date of birth: 16 December 1973

Location teacher worked: Bedford, East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 December 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 Paul Jones, formerly employed in Bedford, 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 Paul Jones: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 5 Statement of Agreed Facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 9 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 Paul Jones Teacher ref number: 1282288 Teacher date of birth: 16 December 1973 TRA reference: 22574 Date of determination: 17 December 2025 Former employer: Simply Education, Bedford (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 December 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Jones The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bernie Whittle (teacher panellist) and Mr Scott Evans (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Callum Heywood of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Jones was not present and was not represented. 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 Jones that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Jones provided a signed Statement of Agreed Facts and admitted that he was convicted of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Jones or his representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 3 October 2025. It was alleged that Mr Jones was convicted of a relevant offence in that on 16 July 2024, he was convicted at Cambridge Crown Court of: 1. One or more counts of taking Indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of children contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 section 1 on or before or between: a. 24.09.2019 and 05.08.2022; b. 30.08.2021 and 07.04.2022; c. 20.08.2022 and 20.08.2022. 2. One or more counts of making an Indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of children contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 section 1(a) on or before 28.04.2023. 3. One or more counts of Voyeurism – Record a person doing a private act contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 67(3) on or before or between: a. 24.09.2019; b. 17.03.2020 and 09.05.2021; c. 29.05.2021; d. 29.05.2021 and 05.08.2022; e. 05.09.2021 and 07.04.2023; f. 14.07.2022 and 25.08.2022. 4. One or more counts of possession of prohibited images of children contrary to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 section 62(1) on or between 28.04.2023. In the Statement of Agreed Facts dated 1 August 2025, Mr Jones admitted allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 and that his admitted conduct constituted a conviction of a relevant offence. [REDACTED] Summary of evidence 5 Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of referral and response – pages 4 to 8 Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and representations – pages 13 to 20 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 22 to 96 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 99 to 101 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts dated 1 August 2025 which was signed by Mr Jones. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Jones 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 Jones was employed as a supply teacher at the School from 7 October 2014 to 28 April 2023. Mr Jones was referred to the TRA on 15 September 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 6 You have been convicted of a relevant offence in that on 15 April 2024, you were convicted at Cambridge Crown Court of: 1. One or more counts of taking Indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of children contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 section 1 on or before or between: a) 24.09.2019 and 05.08.2022; b) 30.08.2021 and 07.04.2022; c) 20.08.2022 and 20.08.2022. 2. One or more counts of making an Indecent photograph or pseudo photograph of children contrary to the Protection of Children Act 1978 section 1(a) on or before 28.04.2023. 3. One or more counts of Voyeurism – Record a person doing a private act contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 section 67(3) on or before or between: a) 24.09.2019; b) 17.03.2020 and 09.05.2021; c) 29.05.2021; d) 29.05.2021 and 05.08.2022; e) 05.09.2021 and 07.04.2023; f) 25.08.2022. 4. One or more counts of possession of prohibited images of children contrary to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 section 62(1) on or between 28.04.2023. In the Statement of Agreed Facts, Mr Jones admitted that he was convicted of each of the offences set out in allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the certificate of conviction. Mr Jones further admitted in the Statement of Agreed Facts that: • On 28 April 2023, Mr Jones was arrested at his place of work by [REDACTED]. The police had received intelligence that indicated Mr Jones had downloaded indecent images of children at his home address. A search was undertaken of Mr Jones' home address, and 26 devices were seized including an SD card containing video footage 7 of [REDACTED]. The footage included sexual activity between [REDACTED]. Mr Jones had installed cameras within the bathroom and the bedroom [REDACTED]. • Mr Jones made admissions at interview. As part of his interview Mr Jones confirmed that he had been using file sharing platforms for at least 5 years prior to his arrest and that he had been recording [REDACTED] for several years. • The matter was first heard before the Peterborough Magistrates Court on 15 April 2024 where Mr Jones indicated guilty pleas in respect of all charges and thereafter was committed for sentence at Cambridge Crown Court on 16 July 2024. • Mr Jones was sentenced to concurrent sentences of imprisonment, the longest of which was 56 months after plea. The panel considered a certificate of conviction from Cambridge Crown Court, confirming that Mr Jones was convicted on 15 April 2024 of the offences particularised in allegations 1, 2, 3 and 4. The panel noted that Mr Jones was sentenced on 16 July 2024 to concurrent sentences of imprisonment, the longest of which was 56 months after his guilty plea. The panel considered the transcript of the sentencing remarks dated 16 July 2024, summarising the offences and the reason for the sentence imposed. The panel noted the following remarks in relation to Mr Jones’ conduct [REDACTED]: • “The most serious aspect of your offending is the breach of trust”; • “They trusted you to be safe”; and • “You breached that trusts [sic] in a very serious way”. The panel noted that there was no evidence showing that there were any exceptional circumstances to call into question the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel therefore accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the commission of these offences by Mr Jones. The panel therefore found allegations 1(a) to (c), 2, 3(a) to (f) and 4 proven. Findings as to a conviction of a relevant offence The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Jones, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Jones was in breach of the following standards: 8 • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining the rule of law • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Jones’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting, as Mr Jones’ convictions relate to indecent images and sexual offences against children. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have an impact on the safety and security of pupils and members of the public, given the harm caused by sexual offences against children and the creation of indecent images. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Jones’ behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Jones’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered th