Mr Peter Hoare

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 Peter Hoare

Teacher reference number: 1144051 

Teacher's date of birth: 05 February 1990

Location teacher worked: Staffordshire, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 27 June 2024

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Peter Hoare formerly employed in Staffordshire, West 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 Peter Hoare: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2024 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 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Peter Hoare Teacher ref number: 1144051 Teacher date of birth: 05 February 1990 TRA reference: 0021874 Date of determination: 27 June 2024 Former employer: Three Peaks Primary Academy, Tamworth Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually on 27 June 2024 to consider the case of Mr Peter Hoare. The panel members were Gemma Hutchinson (teacher panellist – in the chair), Aidan Jenkins (teacher panellist) and Emma Hendry (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Tania Dosoruth of Blake Morgan 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 Hoare that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Hoare provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Hoare or any representative appointed on his behalf. The meeting took place in private, save for the announcement of the panel’s decision, which was announced in public and recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 17 April 2024. It was alleged that Mr Hoare was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: He is guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that while working as a Teacher at Three Peaks Primary Academy 1. Between approximately August 2018 and August 2022, he posted inappropriate content online, namely on Twitter which included the following; a) Sexually explicit pictures; b) Sexually explicit videos; c) Sexually explicit messages; d) Comments about drug use. Mr Hoare admitted the facts of the allegations and that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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: Notice of Referral & Response – pages 5 to 18 Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 20 to 22 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 23 to 82 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 83 to 85 5 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 Hoare on 3 February 2024. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Hoare 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. The panel proceeded to carefully consider the case, having read all the documents, and reached a decision. Mr Hoare was previously employed as a classroom teacher at Three Peaks Primary Academy (‘the School’) which is part of the Creative Education Trust from 1 September 2012 until his resignation in June 2022. Mr Hoare’s last day at the School was 31 August 2022. On 24 March 2023 a parent reported concerns to the Headteacher of the School regarding a Twitter account which appeared to be run by one of the teachers who had previously worked at the School, Mr Hoare. The concerns were passed on to Individual A, [REDACTED] from the [REDACTED], Individual B who requested that an investigation be carried out into the Twitter account. Individual A’s first action was to review the content of the Twitter account which contained material from 3 August 2018 until 23 March 2023. Mr Hoare’s profile was public which meant that it could be viewed by anyone without restriction. Individual A noted that there was nothing in the Twitter profile which linked the account to the School or which stated that Mr Hoare was a teacher. Individual A reviewed hundreds of posts on the Twitter account which contained sexual images and videos of Mr Hoare. There were no posts of any underaged individuals. In summary Individual A discovered the following images: 6 a. Sexually explicit pictures of Mr Hoare’s genitalia b. Pictures of his anus c. Pictures of Mr Hoare masturbating d. Photographs of Mr Hoare engaging in sexual activity with adults e. Comments and pictures which appeared to show Mr Hoare taking money for sexual favours f. Sexually explicit messages and screenshots of text messages g. Pictures and messages about sexual activity in public places h. A video of Mr Hoare masturbating in public i. Retweets of other sexually explicit videos and photographs and j. Tweets which mention reference to taking drugs As Mr Hoare had already left the School when the concerns were reported, Individual A did not contact Mr Hoare as part of her investigation but referred the matter to the TRA on 25 April 2023. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows. The panel made the following findings in relation to the particulars of the allegations as follows: 1. Between approximately August 2018 and August 2022, you posted inappropriate content online, namely on Twitter which included the following; a) Sexually explicit pictures; b) Sexually explicit videos; c) Sexually explicit messages; d) Comments about drug use. The panel considered allegations 1(a) to 1(c) together on the basis that the evidence in respect of each matter was the same. 7 Mr Hoare accepts that the Twitter account was his and accepts that he posted the images and videos as described in the allegations. Mr Hoare outlined that the account was started in 2018 for personal use, but that he did not post anything of himself until 2020. Mr Hoare explained that he was suffering with his [REDACTED] at the time and that he was unhappy with a lot of elements in his life and that the change in the nature of his posts was a reflection of this. Mr Hoare explained that he had sought [REDACTED] in 2022 and that he was on [REDACTED] which was why he had made the decision to leave the profession. The allegations were accordingly admitted by Mr Hoare. The panel were not provided with copies of the posts from Twitter due to their explicit content in evidence but were provided with a screenshot of the Twitter account. However, the panel considered the evidence of Individual A who described viewing all of the content and recording the nature and date of the posts in some detail. The panel also noted that Mr Hoare’s admissions were unequivocal and that he fully accepted posting the content as alleged on Twitter. The panel therefore found allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) proved. d) Comments about drug use. The evidence in relation to this particular of allegation consisted of the evidence provided by Individual A as well as screenshots of a number of the posts. Mr Hoare admitted the allegation and that he had posted about drug use however he pointed out that his posts were concerned with the use of “poppers” which were party drugs and legal but not any illicit drugs. The panel considered that the two posts that it had before it in evidence which were concerned with drug use both referred to “poppers” which was consistent with Mr Hoare’s admissions. As the allegation was worded as referring only to drug use without any specific reference to any particular drug and/or illegal or illicit drugs the panel considered that Mr Hoare’s admissions were consistent with the evidence before it and the wording of the allegation. The panel further considered that “poppers”, whilst not classified under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 as a class A, B or C drug still fell into the definition of being a drug which was subject to restrictions on supply in certain circumstances. The panel therefore found the facts of allegation 1(d) proved. 8 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. Mr Hoare admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Whilst the panel took these admissions into account, it made its own determination. 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 Hoare in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel cons idered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Hoare was in breach of the following standards:  T eachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school…  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach.  Teachers must have an understanding of and always act within the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel considered whether Mr Hoare’s conduct was of a serious nature which fell far short of what was expected of a teacher. In line with the Advice the panel also gave careful consideration as to whether Mr Hoare’s actions which took place outside of the educational setting had the potential to impact on Mr Hoare’s exercise of his professional duties or in the alternative to damage public perception of the teaching profession. The panel noted that the posts by Mr Hoare were made at the time that he was still a teacher. The panel noted that they did not refer explicitly to his being a teacher or to the School. Nonetheless the panel were of the view that Mr Hoare’s account was of a public nature which meant that his posts could be seen by anyone and that the matter came to light as a parent had come across the account and identified Mr Hoare. Individual A also provided evidence that Mr Hoare was clearly identifiable from the posts. The panel considered that as the account was public and appeared to have in the region of 10,000 followers with thousands of posts being made of an explicit nature that Mr Hoare’s conduct could not be considered as purely a matter which had occurred within his private life. In addition to this the panel were also mindful of the evidence which suggested that some of the conduct by Mr Hoare which was the subject of the posts had occurred in a public setting. 9 In summary the panel was of the view that Mr Hoare’s conduct was not purely conduct that had occurred within his private life. The panel then went on to consider the allegations. In relation to allegations 1a) to c) the panel were of the view that the content of the Twitter posts was of an extremely explicit nature. The volume and number of posts as well as the prolonged period during which the posts were made also meant that Mr Hoare’s conduct could not be regarded as simply a one-off lapse in judgement but should instead be regarded as a lifestyle choice that Mr Hoare had made at the time to post such content. This had occurred prior to Mr Hoare leaving the school and in the context of his being a teacher. The panel were mindful of the fact that it was not their role to cast any judgement on Mr Hoare’s private lifestyle or activities but that the severity of the conduct lay in the fact of the public nature of the explicit posts that Mr Hoare had made in which he was clearly identifiable. The panel considered that any teacher making repeated posts of this nature was likely to have acted in an unacceptable manner. In relation to allegation 1d) whilst it was accepted by the panel that Mr Hoare posted about “poppers” the panel nonetheless considered this conduct to be extremely serious. The panel were of the view that it was not ever appropriate for public posts to be made which related to using any drugs (even legal ones) recreationally or in large quantities. The panel were of the view that it was also the nature and sexual context of the posts with regards to “poppers” being used that made the conduct acceptable. The panel therefore found that allegations 1a), b), c) and d) amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Hoare’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 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 extremely serious, and the conduct displayed would be very likely to have a negative impact on Mr Hoare’s status as a teacher and the wider profession as whole. There were a large number of posts which were all publicly accessible and in which Mr Hoare was identifiable. The panel also considered that given the explicit nature of the content, the posts had the potential to damage the public perception of teaching as a profession. The panel further considered that in line with the Advice whilst there had not been any criminal proceedings in relation to Mr Hoare’s conduct, his behaviours nonetheless were 10 associated with a number of offences such as sexual activity with a suggestion of payment for services, voyeurism and the distribution of explicit material regarding sexual acts between adults. As a result of all of the above the panel found that Mr Hoare’s actions constituted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In summary, having found the facts of particulars 1 proved, the panel further found that Mr Hoare’s conduct 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 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. These were: • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct within the teaching profession • that the prohibition would strike the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Hoare, which involved posting publicly available content of a sexually explicit nature which included sexual acts in a public place as well as suggestions of receiving money for sexual acts, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils and other members of the public. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct, such as that found against Mr Hoare, was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The public rightly, expect teachers to act appropriately and professionally at all times. These are 11 fundamental tenets of the profession. In that context, the panel considered Mr Hoare’s actions damaged public confidence in him, as a professional, and the profession as a whole. The panel also decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Hoare was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel also considered whether there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining Mr Hoare in the profession. No doubt had been cast upon Mr Hoare's abilities however, there was no evidence available as to his prior practise as an educator. In particular, Mr Hoare had not presented any character references or testimonials and had indicated that he had left the profession. In those circumstances, the panel did not consider there was a strong public interest in retaining Mr Hoare in the profession. Notwithstanding 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 Hoare. 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 Hoare. 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 are relevant in this case are:  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  sexual misconduct, for example, involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature…. 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 whether there were any mitigating factors which meant that a prohibition may not be appropriate. The panel considered the following mitigating factors were present in this case. Although the panel recognised that there had not been any previous concerns in respect of Mr Hoare’s practice as a teacher and that he had admitted the allegations the panel were not of the view that there were any significant mitigating factors in this case. 12 The panel noted that Mr Hoare had indicated that [REDACTED]. However, the panel noted that the absence record only showed one instance of Mr Hoare being off work for this reason at the time. The panel was also not provided with any further details or medical evidence which provided any details as to Mr Hoare’s health either at the time or since. The panel therefore concluded that with such limited information it could not consider this to be a mitigating factor. The aggravating features in this case were that: • Mr Hoare had an obligation to act as a role model to pupils and colleagues and he failed in his duties in that regard by posting a large quantity extremely explicit content over a prolonged period of time. • Mr Hoare's actions amounted to a clear breach of the Teachers' Standards • Mr Hoare failed to adhere to the school’s Code of Conduct which had explicitly stated that staff must be aware that their behaviour in the personal life could impact upon their work and that they should not share details of their family, personal photographs or details to avoid this. • Although Mr Hoare had admitted the allegations the panel had nothing before it which suggested that Mr Hoare recognised the severity of his conduct and what had led to it and there was no evidence as to what support mechanisms, he had put in place to prevent the situation from occurring. The panel therefore considered that it had no evidence to demonstrate that Mr Hoare had insight into his conduct or anything to satisfy the panel that there would not be a repeat of Mr Hoare’s conduct. • The panel were also mindful that it was not easy to remove publicly available explicit content from the internet. 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, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings was sufficient, in this case, would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Hoare of prohibition. The panel was accordingly of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. This was because the public interest considerations present, as identified 13 above, were particularly strong and outweighed the interests of Mr Hoare. Additionally, the panel had nothing before it to suggest that Mr Hoare was remorseful for his conduct or recognised the severity of his actions and the impact of his conduct which meant that there was a high risk of repetition. Accordingly, for all these reasons, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are behaviours that, if proved, would mitigate against the recommendation of a review period. The behaviours set out in the advice included serious sexual misconduct and any activity involving viewing, taking making possessing distributing any indecent photographs or images of a child. Whilst Mr Hoare’s conduct did not involve sexual misconduct in the sense of non- consensual activity or the making or distribution of explicit images involving children or young persons the panel was of the view that this list was non-exhaustive and that there were elements of Mr Hoare’s conduct which did include these elements. In this case Mr Hoare made explicit images and videos of sexual acts sometimes in public places and had posted them in a manner which meant that they could be viewed by anyone. Furthermore, there was a suggestion of Mr Hoare taking money for sexual acts in the posts. The panel considered that these behaviours were on par with the specific circumstances listed in the Advice that would mitigate against a review period. Further, as set out above, Mr Hoare had shown no insight into what had occurred and the severity of his actions including their impact on the wider profession of teaching. Mr Hoare had not offered any evidence as to what he had put in place to prevent any re- occurrence. The panel did have in mind that prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive. However, the panel decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provision for a review period as a result of the nature of Mr Hoare’s conduct and also in the absence of any evidence of insight and/or any other evidence to re-assure the panel that Mr Hoare had remediated his conduct and that it would not be repeated. 14 In summary, having carefully considered all of the circumstances of this case, the panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate. 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 both sanction and review period. 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 all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Peter Hoare should be the subject of a prohibition order with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Hoare is 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… • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. • 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 Hoare fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher posting inappropriate content online including sexually explicit pictures, sexually explicit videos, sexually explicit messages, as well as comments about drug use. 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 15 whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Hoare, 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: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Hoare, which involved posting publicly available content of a sexually explicit nature which included sexual acts in a public place as well as suggestions of receiving money for sexual acts, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils and other members of the public.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “Although Mr Hoare had admitted the allegations the panel had nothing before it which suggested that Mr Hoare recognised the severity of his conduct and what had led to it and there was no evidence as to what support mechanisms, he had put in place to prevent the situation from occurring. The panel therefore considered that it had no evidence to demonstrate that Mr Hoare had insight into his conduct or anything to satisfy the panel that there would not be a repeat of Mr Hoare’s conduct.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Hoare has attained insight into and remorse for his behaviour means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable 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: “The findings of misconduct were extremely serious, and the conduct displayed would be very likely to have a negative impact on Mr Hoare’s status as a teacher and the wider profession as whole. There were a large number of posts which were all publicly accessible and in which Mr Hoare was identifiable. The panel also considered that given the explicit nature of the content, the posts had the potential to damage the public perception of teaching as a profession.” I am particularly mindful of the findings in this case of a teacher posting sexually explicit material on the internet and the negative impact that such findings may have on the reputation 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 16 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 Hoare himself. The panel records that: “The panel also considered whether there was a strong public interest consideration in retaining Mr Hoare in the profession. No doubt had been cast upon Mr Hoare's abilities however, there was no evidence available as to his prior practise as an educator. In particular, Mr Hoare had not presented any character references or testimonials and had indicated that he had left the profession.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Hoare 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 comments concerning the lack of evidence of insight or remorse on Mr Hoare’s part, as well as on the serious nature of the misconduct found by the panel. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Hoare has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, that is not backed up by full remorse or insight, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. In doing so, the panel has referred to the Advice, which indicates that there are behaviours that, if proved, would mitigate against the recommendation of a review period. The behaviours set out in the advice included serious sexual misconduct and any activity involving viewing, taking making possessing distributing any indecent photographs or images of a child. 17 The panel goes on to acknowledge that Mr Hoare’s conduct did not involve sexual misconduct in the sense of non-consensual activity or the making or distribution of explicit images involving children or young persons. However, it is clear that the panel was of the view that there were elements of Mr Hoare’s conduct which did include the elements spelt out in the Advice. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “In this case Mr Hoare made explicit images and videos of sexual acts sometimes in public places and had posted them in a manner which meant that they could be viewed by anyone. Furthermore, there was a suggestion of Mr Hoare taking money for sexual acts in the posts. The panel considered that these behaviours were on par with the specific circumstances listed in the Advice that would mitigate against a review period.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are lack of evidence of Mr Hoare’s remorse and insight and the associated risk of repetition, as well as the serious nature of the misconduct found by the panel. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Peter Hoare is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Hoare shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Hoare has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 2 July 2024 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.