Mr Peter Jenkins

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 Jenkins

Teacher reference number: 9155401

Teacher's date of birth: 18 August 1969

Location teacher worked: Hereford, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 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 Peter Jenkins, of Hereford, 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 Jenkins: Professional conduct panel 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 4 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 Peter Jenkins Teacher ref number: 9155401 Teacher date of birth: 18 August 1969 TRA reference: 19576 Date of determination: 4 December 2025 Former employer: Whitecross Hereford, Hereford Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4 December 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Jenkins. The panel members were Mr Francis Murphy (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist) and Ms Katharine Leale (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Nicoletta Czajkowska of Eversheds Sutherland (International) 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 Jenkins that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Jenkins provided a signed statement of agreed facts and notice of referral form in which he admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Mr Jenkins. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 18 November 2025. It was alleged that Mr Jenkins was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: On 27 July 2022 at Warwick Crown Court, he was convicted of, and on 12 August 2022 he was sentenced for, the following relevant offences: 1. 7 offences of indecent assault on a female under 14, contrary to s.14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, s.14 2. 2 offences of intercourse with a girl under 13, contrary to s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 3. 1 offence of sexual assault (intentionally touching a female, no penetration), contrary to s.3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 4. 3 offences of gross indecency with a child (Girl) under 16, contrary to s.1(1) of the Indecency With Children Act 1960 5. 1 offence of rape (female under 16 years), contrary to s.1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 6. 1 offence of attempted indecent assault on a female under 16, contrary to s.14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 Mr Jenkins admitted in a statement of agreed facts that he has been convicted of the relevant offences. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of Referral, Response and Notice of Meeting – pages 5 to 21b Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 22 to 28 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents– pages 29 to 85 5 Section 5: Teacher Documents – pages 89 to 95 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 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 Jenkins 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 considered the statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Jenkins on 28 September 2025. Mr Jenkins reported himself to the police on 20 January 2020. He was interviewed voluntarily under caution and admitted committing various sexual offences against five victims between 1984 and 2005 while he was a teacher. Mr Jenkins accepted that some of the offending involved pupils he taught. He was subsequently charged with various sexual offences relating to those victims. On 27 July 2022, Mr Jenkins pleaded guilty to the offences at Warwick Crown Court. His last known employment as a teacher was at Whitecross High School, where he served as Head of Religious Education from 1 September 1999 to 31 August 2006. The matter was referred to the TRA on 13 October 2020. Mr Jenkins was made the subject of an interim prohibition order by the TRA on 1 June 2023. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted, at any time, of a relevant offence, in that on 27 July 2022 at Warwick Crown Court you were convicted of, and on 12 August 2022 you were sentenced for, the following relevant offences: court in or around 2024 one or more counts of: 1. 7 offences of indecent assault on a female under 14, contrary to s.14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956, s.14 2. 2 offences of intercourse with a girl under 13, contrary to s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 3. 1 offence of sexual assault (intentionally touching a female, no penetration), contrary to s.3 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 4. 3 offences of gross indecency with a child (Girl) under 16, contrary to s.1(1) of the Indecency With Children Act 1960 5. 1 offence of rape (female under 16 years), contrary to s.1(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 6. 1 offence of attempted indecent assault on a female under 16, contrary to s.14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 The panel considered the certificate of conviction confirming Mr Jenkins’ convictions of the alleged offences. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the convictions and the facts necessarily implied by the convictions. The certificate of conviction showed that Mr Jenkins was convicted of 15 offences:  Seven counts of indecent assault on a girl under 14 years of age;  Two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 years of age;  Three counts of goss indecency with a girl under the age of 16 years of age;  Rape of a female under 16 years of age;  Attempt to indecently assault a girl under the age of 16 years of age; and  Sexual assault on a female 7 The judge ordered that Mr Jenkins receive a custodial sentence of 13 years imprisonment. Mr Jenkins was also subject to a Sex Offenders’ Notification Requirements indefinitely and to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until a further order. The judge also imposed a Restraining Order on Mr Jenkins in respect of two of the victims. The panel noted that Mr Jenkins confirmed in his statements of agreed facts that he pleaded guilty to all 15 offences on 27 July 2022 at Warwick Crown Court and was sentenced on 12 August 2022. The panel therefore find the allegations proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of this proved allegation amounted to a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The offences were committed by Mr Jenkins prior to the coming into force of Teachers’ Standards. The panel had regard to its knowledge and experience of teaching standards at that time and considered that breaching trust as a teacher and engaging in a sexual activity with a pupil, which constituted a criminal offence that Mr Jenkins has been convicted of, would fall way below the standard expected of a teacher at the time. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The panel noted that these actions relate to Mr Jenkins’ breach of trust as a teacher in engaging in sexual activity with a pupil and his position within church groups. The panel further noted the sentencing remarks from the Judge: “The veneer of respectability in terms of your position as a school teacher and your position within church groups hid the awful reality of your predatory behaviour towards young girls which had persisted well into your 30s.” The panel found that the behaviour involved in committing the offences would have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Jenkins’ behaviour in committing the offence would affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Jenkins’ behaviour led to a significant sentence of imprisonment of 13 years and lifelong Sex Offenders’ Notification Requirements and a Sexual Harm 8 Prevention Order and this was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. In addition to the sentencing remarks from the sentencing Judge: “You are, of course, a dangerous offender by reason of these offences” and “you are in my view a dangerous offender”. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning serious offences involving sexual activity, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel considered these offences to be at the most serious end of th