Mr Roberto De La Llera Martos

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 Roberto De La Llera Martos

Teacher reference number: 0400363

Teacher's date of birth: 27 June 1969

Location teacher worked: Marlow, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 to 20 March 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 Roberto De La Llera Martos, formerly employed in Marlow, South East 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 Roberto De La Llera Martos: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Roberto De La Llera Martos Teacher ref number: 0400363 Teacher date of birth: 27 June 1969 TRA reference: 21325 Date of determination: 20 March 2026 Former employer: Great Marlow School, Marlow Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 18 to 20 March 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Roberto De La Llera Martos. The panel members were Dr Louise Wallace (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Rachel Kruger (teacher panellist) and Ms Sarah Green (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Alexander Elliott of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Mark Millin of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Martos 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 16 December 2022. It was alleged that Mr Martos was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. On 17 March 2022, he engaged in an inappropriate conversation with Student A, namely, he: a) told Student A he wanted someone to “play” with him, and/or “to fulfil [his] needs” or words to that effect; b) told Student A he would be willing to pay money in exchange for the conduct described at paragraph 1a; c) asked Student A whether they knew anyone who would be interested in participating in the conduct described at paragraph 1a and/or 1b; 2. His conduct at paragraphs 1a and/or 1b and/or 1c was sexually motivated and/or of a sexual nature. Mr Martos made no admissions in respect of allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2. Further, he made no admission as to whether his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 13 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 14 to 31 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 32 to 485 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 486 to 487 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 5 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] Student A – Student A Mother A – Mother to Student A 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 Martos commenced employment at Great Marlow School (“the School”) on 5 February 2008. On 17 March 2022, Mr Martos allegedly asked Student A, as he was leaving tutor time, to return to his classroom during the lunch break. It is alleged that during the subsequent conversation in the lunch break, Mr Martos told Student A that [REDACTED], and asked Student A whether they knew anyone who would want to “play” with him. Mr Martos also allegedly suggested that he would be willing to pay someone to do so. Later the same day, Mother A reported the incident to the School. The School made reports to the LADO and to the police. On 23 March 2022, Mr Martos was suspended. On 20 October 2022, Mr Martos ceased employment at the School. The matter was referred to the TRA on 1 December 2022. 6 Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On 17 March 2022, you engaged in an inappropriate conversation with Student A, namely, you: a) told Student A you wanted someone to “play” with you, and/or “to fulfil [your] needs” or words to that effect; b) told Student A you would be willing to pay money in exchange for the conduct described at paragraph 1a; c) asked Student A whether they knew anyone who would be interested in participating in the conduct described at paragraph 1a and/or 1b; The panel considered the witness statement and oral evidence of Student A, who stated that Mr Martos was their [REDACTED] throughout their time at the School. In oral evidence, Student A described Mr Martos as their “[REDACTED]”, and that they had initially found it difficult to report Mr Martos’ alleged conduct due to the possibility of repercussions against Mr Martos. The panel noted Witness A’s reference in his witness statement to Student A being a “[REDACTED]” and there having been no concerns regarding Student A’s behaviour or character. Witness B also informed the panel that she had not had any reason to believe Student A might be untruthful. The panel did not find that it had any reason for it to doubt Student A’s sincerity in providing their evidence, though, conscious of Mr Martos’ absence, continued to take an inquisitorial approach to the evidence. Student A stated that on 17 March 2022, Mr Martos asked Student A to come and see him at lunchtime, which Student A did, and the conversation lasted around 5 to 10 minutes. Student A submitted that during that meeting, Mr Martos said [REDACTED] and asked whether Student A knew anyone who would want to earn money by “playing” with him. Student A further stated that Mr Martos continued in the same conversation to ask if Student A was interested, then told Student A that if they did think of anyone who was interested, they should let Mr Martos know. During the hearing, Student A was referred to a written summary of their interview with Thames Valley Police, which had been shared with the School during its investigation. Student A stated in oral evidence that this was an accurate summary of a police interview they attended on 21 March 2022, and that it accurately reflected the events on 17 March 2022. 7 During the interview, Student A reportedly stated that Mr Martos had said [REDACTED] and then asked if Student A knew anyone who would like a job earning £80 - £100 per week. Mr Martos then reportedly went on to say he wanted someone to “play with him” but it would not involve sex, that he liked younger [REDACTED] and would be happy to buy clothes or pay money for this. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness B. Witness B submitted that, on 17 March 2022, after the school day had finished, Individual C, [REDACTED], received a phone call from Mother A, reporting that Student A was very upset following an incident that day with Mr Martos. Witness B attended Student A’s home with Individual C, and stated that Student A became visibly upset before recounting the incident. Student A was referred to handwritten notes taken by Witness B on 17 March 2022. Student A stated in oral evidence that this was an accurate summary of the discussion they had with Witness B and Individual C on 17 March 2022, which was the same day as Student A’s conversation with Mr Martos. These notes record Student A stating that Mr Martos said [REDACTED], that he could offer people £80 - £100 for “fulfilling [his] needs” and that if Student A could think of anyone, they should let Mr Martos know. The panel considered the notes of Mr Martos’ interview during the School’s investigation process. Mr Martos had reportedly admitted that he informed Student A [REDACTED] and liked the [REDACTED] Student A was wearing, and asked if Student A would “like to earn extra money”. Mr Martos then reportedly stated that Student A asked if this would involve gardening, and that he had responded “no not gardening, or playing, playing football”. In a subsequent email to the School, Mr Martos stated “The idea of ‘playing’ was intended to mean competitive activities such as video games, from which a student might be expected to ‘win’ money”. On the balance of probabilities, the panel accepted Student A’s contemporaneous recollection of events provided to Witness B and the police, together with Student A’s written and oral witness evidence. The panel therefore found proven that, on 17 March 2022, Mr Martos had: a) told Student A that he wanted someone to “play” with him and/or “fulfil [his] needs”, or words to that effect’; b) told Student A that he would be willing to pay money in exchange for the conduct described above; and c) asked Student A whether they knew anyone who would be interested in participating in the conduct described above. The panel went on to consider whether the conversation between Mr Martos and Student A was inappropriate. 8 The panel took into account Mr Martos’ explanation for his actions, as set out within his email to Kingsley Napley LLP dated 2 January 2023 and the notes of his interview with the School on 5 July 2022. Mr Martos stated that he intended to discuss a sponsorship proposal with Student A, whereby he would have paid money to students, via their parents, so they could focus on their studies rather than having to undertake part-time employment. The panel had sight of a written document produced by Mr Martos during the School’s investigation, which