Mr Reece Denton

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 Reece Denton

Teacher reference number: 1765798

Teacher's date of birth: 10 August 1996

Location teacher worked: Cheshire, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 January 2026

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 Reece Denton, formerly employed in Cheshire, 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 Reece Denton: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 18 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Reece Denton Teacher ref number: 1765798 Teacher date of birth: 10 August 1996 TRA reference: 23198 Date of determination: 21 January 2026 Former employer: Learn Northwest Education LLP, Altrincham and Beamont Collegiate Academy, Warrington Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 19 January 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Denton. The panel members were Mr Richard Young (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Emma Barnett (lay panellist) and Miss Eleanor Wilson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Davina Kahlon of Eversheds Sutherland LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Miss Zoe Bushby of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Denton was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 4 November 2025. It was alleged that Mr Denton was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a maths tutor at Learn North West Education and/or teacher at Beamont School: 1. Mr Denton engaged in [REDACTED] and/or unprofessional behaviour by; a. Messaging Pupil A on WhatsApp; b. Engaging in telephone calls with Pupil A; c. Facetiming Pupil A; d. Visiting Pupil A [REDACTED] without Learn North West Education’s consent and/or knowledge on or around 25 November 2023; e. Suggesting to Pupil A he could cover up the CCTV camera with his blazer or using words to that effect on or around 25 November 2023; f. Asking his [REDACTED] to send a letter to Pupil A’s [REDACTED]. 2. Mr Denton’s conduct as may be found proven at Allegation 1d was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. In the absence of/non-response from the teacher, the allegations were not admitted. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Anonymised pupil list – page 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 21 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 104 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 105 to 164 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the proof of delivery of the Notice of Proceedings. 5 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document that the panel decided to admit. 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 the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B - [REDACTED] Witness C - [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Denton had been employed as maths teacher at Beamont Collegiate Academy (“the School”) since July 2018 and resigned from his post on 21 December 2023. In addition to this role, he undertook subcontracted work as a self-employed maths tutor with Learn Northwest Education LLP (“Learn Northwest”) from 27 January 2022 until his resignation on 21 December 2023. [REDACTED] The panel noted during the presenting officer’s submissions that they should draw adverse inferences as the teacher did not provide any reasonable explanation or response for his lack of attendance. The panel decided not to draw adverse inferences as the teacher had engaged with the TRA to some to extent and whilst no explanation for non-attendance had been given the panel noted the evidence before it in relation to the teachers [REDACTED]. 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 1. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour, by: a. Messaging Pupil A on WhatsApp The panel heard evidence from Witness B, a [REDACTED] where Pupil A was admitted. Witness B explained in her oral testimony that she requested a handover from Mr Denton following his visit. During that handover, Mr Denton informed her that he was more of a family friend than a tutor and that he was regularly contacting Pupil A via WhatsApp. The panel noted paragraph 16 of Witness B’s statement which stated: “I know that after concerns were raised about Mr Denton’s visit, [REDACTED], Pupil A’s [REDACTED], had a meeting with Pupil A’s [REDACTED]who then reviewed her phone. I know that [REDACTED] was in contact with Pupil A’s [REDACTED]who said that they had been monitoring Pupil A’s phone but has not seen anything of concern. Although, [REDACTED] did say there had been deleted messages on WhatsApp between Pupil A and Mr Denton.” The panel also considered the [REDACTED] dated 25 November 2023. These notes recorded an entry made by Witness B following Mr Denton’s visit, which stated: “Showed me that he had ongoing WhatsApp conversations with [Pupil A]…” The panel also heard oral evidence from Witness C, a partner at Learn Northwest. [REDACTED] explained that, during a telephone call with Pupil A’s [REDACTED] on 20 December 2023, Pupil A’s [REDACTED] stated that she had reviewed the WhatsApp interactions between Pupil A and Mr Denton and described them as “bland” and solely focused on arranging visits. The panel considered the safeguarding report dated 23 December 2023 at Exhibit 7 of [REDACTED]’s statement and noted that the call log between [REDACTED] and Pupil A’s [REDACTED] recorded the same account. The panel also considered an email at Exhibit 6 to Witness C’s statement from a consultant psychiatrist responsible for Pupil A’s care. The email, which was sent to Witness C, raised concerns following Mr Denton’s visit to the [REDACTED]. It stated: “There is a record of texts between the maths tutor and the young person’s phone, but no content that the [REDACTED] are concerned about. He has stated to the [REDACTED] that he has not used Snapchat to communicate with [Pupil A] and will not do so for safeguarding reasons (as there is no record of the texts), but has used WhatsApp.” The panel noted that, in her oral evidence, Witness C confirmed that arrangements for tutoring were made with pupils’ [REDACTED] rather than with pupils directly. She explained that there was an expectation that all meetings and communications would take place with [REDACTED] only, and that Learn Northwest did not hold pupils’ personal contact details on its systems. The panel assessed the weight and reliability of the evidence, and on the balance of probabilities concluded that it was more likely than not that Mr Denton messaged Pupil A 7 on WhatsApp. In reaching this conclusion, the panel placed particular reliance on Mr Denton’s own admissions to nursing staff at the [REDACTED]. The panel considered that messaging Pupil A via WhatsApp was inappropriate and unprofessional, particularly in light of Pupil A’s vulnerability [REDACTED]. Although the evidence indicated that there was nothing untoward in the content of the messages, the panel was concerned that the messages between Pupil A and Mr Denton had been deleted. The panel further noted that there was no necessity for Mr Denton to contact Pupil A in a personal capacity, as any communication could and should have been conducted through Pupil A’s [REDACTED] in line with Learn Northwest’s arrangements. In any event, the panel concluded that there was no justification for Mr Denton to continue contacting Pupil A following the termination of the tuition. The panel therefore found allegation 1a proven. b. Engaging in telephone calls with Pupil A; c. Facetiming Pupil A; The panel noted paragraph 14 of Witness B’s statement which stated: “During the handover, Mr Denton also informed me that he was regularly contacting Pupil A via WhatsApp and that they regularly call and facetime. He also told me he is now more of a family friend than a tutor since he no longer tutors Pupil A.” The panel also considered the [REDACTED] dated 25 November 2023. These notes recorded an entry made by Witness B following Mr Denton’s visit, which stated: “Said he calls and facetimes with [Pupil A]”. In addition, the Panel considered the safeguarding report dated 21 December 2023 at Exhibit 7 of Witness C’s statement. The panel noted that this report included a call log between Witness C and Mr Denton, which recorded Witness C expressing concerns about Mr Denton contacting Pupil A, and Mr Denton confirming that he would delete Pupil A’s phone number. The panel considered that there was less evidence in respect of telephone calls and facetime interactions between Pupil A and Mr Denton than in relation to WhatsApp messages for the purposes of the allegations. However, applying the balance of probabilities, the panel concluded that there was sufficient evidence to find that it was more likely than not that Mr Denton engaged in telephone calls and facetime interactions with Pupil A. The panel considered that calling and facetiming Pupil