Mr Richard Lees

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 Richard Lees

Teacher reference number: 1866572

Teacher's date of birth: 7 June 1981

Location teacher worked: Lancashire, North West

Date of professional conduct panel: 14 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 Richard Lees, formerly employed in Lancashire, North West.

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 Richard Lees: Professional conduct panel meeting 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 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Richard Lees Teacher ref number: 1866572 Teacher date of birth: 7 June 1981 TRA reference: 21551 Date of determination: 14 January 2026 Former employer: Holy Family Roman Catholic and Church of England College, Lancashire (“the school”). Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 14 January 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Richard Lees. The panel members were Mrs Michelle Chappell (teacher panellist – in the chair), Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist) and Dr Sheila Cunningham (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jonathan White of Blake Morgan 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 Lees that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Lees provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Cher Lyne Peh of Browne Jacobson solicitors, or Mr Lees. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 30 October 2025. It was alleged that Mr Lees was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On or around 13 November 2024, he was convicted at the Crown Court at Chester of: a. 4 counts of Voyeurism; b. Recording Images Beneath the Clothing of Another; c. 3 counts of Making Indecent Photographs of Children; d. Possession of Indecent Photographs of a Child; and e. Possessing an Extreme Pornographic Image. Mr Lees admitted the facts and admitted that he had been convicted of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of hearing and response – pages 4 to 26a Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer’s Representations – pages 27 to 33 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 36 to 129 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 131 to 133 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”). 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Lees on 31 August 2025. 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 Lees for the allegation 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 Lees was employed at the school from 25 April 2022 until 31 August 2022 as a physical education teacher. On 5 July 2022 Mr Lees was arrested at the school. On 13 November 2024 Mr Lees was convicted of four counts of voyeurism, recording images beneath clothing of another, three counts of making indecent photographs of children, possession of indecent photographs of a child and possessing an extreme pornographic image. On 7 February 2025 Mr Lees was sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for the voyeurism offences and nine months imprisonment, consecutive, for the remaining offences, making a total sentence of two years imprisonment. Mr Lees was also placed on the Sex Offenders Register for 10 years and was made the subject of a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for 10 years. 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: 1. On or around 13 November 2024, you were convicted at the Crown Court at Chester of: a. 4 counts of Voyeurism; b. Recording Images Beneath the Clothing of Another; 6 c. 3 counts of Making Indecent Photographs of Children; d. Possession of Indecent Photographs of a Child; and e. Possessing an Extreme Pornographic Image. The panel was presented with a certificate of conviction from the Crown Court dated 27 March 2025, which confirmed that Mr Lees had been convicted of the offences set out in the Allegation. The panel accepted this certificate of conviction as proof of the commission of the offences concerned. This was consistent with Mr Lees’ admission to the Allegation as set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction for 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 panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Lees, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Lees 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 o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others  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 the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils and members of the public. The panel noted that the voyeurism offences were committed in Mr Lees’ home against members of the public, including colleagues. The offence of recording images beneath clothing involved the targeting of girls aged between [REDACTED] who were pupils at the school. The panel further noted that the offences relating to indecent photographs were on a 7 school computer. The panel had regard to the following remark from the sentencing judge: “…it seems to me you are assessed as posing a risk to females with whom you have social contact, a high risk of serious harm. You are also assessed as a high risk of serious harm to children. Those are the assessments made by the probation officer who has interviewed you.” The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Lees’ behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The sentencing judge remarked: “People send their children to school and have a right to believe that they will be safe with their teachers and that no harm will come to them. I am afraid your actions have disgraced your profession and your actions…are quite appalling…” The panel further noted that Mr Lees’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning offences involving voyeurism (including upskirting) and activity involving making and possessing any indecent photograph or image of a child. The panel considered the offences committed by Mr Lees to be extremely serious. The panel noted the following remarks by the sentencing judge: “It seems to me that all these offences involve a very significant degree of abuse of trust”. In relation to the voyeurism offences specifically: “This was behaviour designed for your sexual gratification and all those offences involve an enormous abuse of trust”. In relation to the recording beneath clothing offence specifically: “Finally, you are at school as a teacher and you are filming up the skirts of young girls [REDACTED]. Again, it is hard to imagine in your profession and your role a more serious breach of trust in relation to those young girls”. The panel did not identify any mitigation. It noted that Mr Lees had entered a guilty plea to these offences, albeit not at the earliest opportunity. The panel considered that Mr Lees lacked insight or remorse in relation to his offending behaviour. The panel noted the following remarks of the sentencing Judge: 8 “I have read with care the pre-sentence report. It seems that you are somebody who finds it difficult to display empathy. I accept that you have portrayed a great deal of shame around your behaviour, but you clearly did not want to associate yourself with the images offences. Your explanation seems to be that they just appeared on your computer and you do not know how. That was initially your defence; you are n