Mr Samuel Caron

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 Samuel Caron

Teacher reference number: 1765299

Teacher's date of birth: 17 July 1991

Location teacher worked: Manchester, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 19 November 2025 to 21 November 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 Samuel Caron, formerly employed in Manchester, North West 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 Samuel Caron: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2025 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 13 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 Samuel Caron Teacher ref number: 17/65299 Teacher date of birth: 17 July 1991 TRA reference: 23671 Date of determination: 21 November 2025 Former employer: St Patrick’s RC Primary School, Manchester Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 19 November 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Caron. The panel members were Mrs Kate Hurley (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Debra Vaughan (lay panellist) and Mr Ramandeep Rai (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Nicoletta Czajkowska of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Laurence Harris of Mountford Chambers, instructed by Brabners LLP solicitors. Mr Samuel Caron was present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and the hearing was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 21 August 2025. It was alleged that Mr Caron was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as a teacher at St Patrick’s RC Primary School: 1. Between 25 October 2022 and 27 May 2023, he sent inappropriate messages via social media to former colleagues, including sexually explicit images, without consent as set out in Schedule 1. 2. His actions as set out in paragraph 1 were sexually motivated. Schedule 1 a. Colleague A - Between 27 July 2023 and 29 July 2023 b. Colleague B - Around December 2022 and 27 May 2023 c. Colleague C - Around 27 May 2023 d. Colleague D - 27 July 2023 e. Colleague E - 25 October 2022 Mr Caron had not submitted a response to the notice of proceedings prior to the hearing commencing. At the outset of the hearing, Mr Caron admitted allegations 1 and 2 in relation to Colleague A, B, C and D, but denied allegation 1 and 2 in relation to Colleague E. Allegation 1 was amended as referred to below. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section A: Pleadings – pages 3 to 28 Section B: Anonymised person list – page 29 Section C: Notice of hearing and proof of service – pages 3 to 31 Section D: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 32 to 202 Section E: Teacher submissions – pages 203 to 234 5 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”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [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 Caron was employed as a teacher at St Patrick’s RC Primary School (“the School”) from 1 September 2021. He was suspended from the School on 30 August 2023 following allegations that he had sent inappropriate social media messages, including sexually explicit images of himself, to former teacher colleagues from his previous employment at another school. An investigation was commenced by the School and conducted by Witness A. Following a disciplinary hearing, Mr Caron’s employment was terminated on 29 January 2024. The matter was subsequently referred to the TRA on 23 April 2024. 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: 1. Between 25 October 2022 and 29 July 2023, you sent inappropriate messages via social media to former colleagues, including sexually explicit images, without consent as set out in Schedule 1. a. Colleague A - Between 27 July 2023 and 29 July 2023 The allegation was admitted by Mr Caron. In addition, Witness A provided exhibited evidence consisting of screenshots of Facebook Messenger messages between Mr Caron and Colleague A. 6 The panel considered the messages sent by Mr Caron, which were alleged to be inappropriate. There was evidence that a sexually explicit image of Mr Caron’s penis was sent to Colleague A. The screenshots showed that Mr Caron had unsent a message, after which he stated: “Nah Mate you can’t tell a soul!!!!!!!!” and “If you saw that I can only apologise”. Colleague A responded confirming that she had seen the photograph and that it was “highly inappropriate”. Mr Caron then sent multiple messages apologising, including: “Colleague A I am so sorry”, “It won’t happen again. Or Anymore”, and “God Colleague A I’ve made a mess here. I am so sorry. I’ve been in a bad [REDACTED] for the past part of 2 years. Had a [REDACTED] and I’ve [REDACTED] big time. Started drinking heavily. I can only apologise. This will not happen again. I am taking myself off the socials. Please don’t get the police mate”. Mr Caron accepted during a disciplinary meeting with Witness A on 21 September 2023 that he sent the messages and that one message contained the sexually explicit image of his penis. In response to this allegation, Mr Caron stated: “[REDACTED] and did not mean it to happen”. In his email to the TRA on 16 August 2024, Mr Caron stated: “Pictures were sent by mistake due to my [REDACTED] and not having [REDACTED] at the time I sent. In another event, my phone had not locked in my pocket, and pictures were sent across my social media inbox, including a male friend. When I realised, I deleted the pictures, apologised as I was mortified of what had happened, and subsequently, I deleted the people from my social media and ultimately deleted the app from my phone. Again, in a separate incident, I [REDACTED] and was trying to send [REDACTED] a meme of Fred Dibner, which was joke at health and safety gone mad” and “I tried to bring myself and [REDACTED] closer together in an effort to rekindle a relationship that was strained due to the [REDACTED]”. During oral evidence, Mr Caron accepted sending sexually explicit images to Colleagues A, B, C and D, but maintained that this was a mistake due [REDACTED], as the images were intended for [REDACTED] as part of efforts to rekindle intimacy during [REDACTED]. He explained that his [REDACTED] was affected by these issues, as well as undergoing [REDACTED]and his ongoing [REDACTED]. Mr Caron also stated that he was heavily drinking and, at the time of sending the messages, was either drunk or hungover. In particular, regarding Colleague A, Mr Caron admitted in cross-examination that he sent the sexually explicit image without her consent but stated that it was a mistake due to [REDACTED] and that it was intended for [REDACTED]. When questioned on the content of his messages, it was noted that Mr Caron did not mention at the time his [REDACTED] or that the message had been misdirected to Colleague A. Instead, in the messages to Colleague A he stated that he had “[REDACTED]” and “started drinking heavily”. In response to that point in cross-examination, Mr Caron stated, “everything has 7 to do with my [REDACTED]” and maintained that the image was intended for [REDACTED]. When asked why the allegations only related to former female colleagues, Mr Caron described it as an “unfortunate incident” and “extremely unlucky”. He stated that his former workplace was “a female dominated environment”, with only two other male colleagues, and he had only one former male colleague as a friend on Facebook. Mr Caron also claimed to have previously sent an explicit image to a male friend by accident and referred to “many previous incidents” of sending messages to the wrong recipients but provided no additional evidence to support this. The panel considered the quantity and nature of the messages to Colleagues A, B, C and D and found Mr Caron’s evidence that the photographs were solely intended for [REDACTED] and sent to the wrong recipients by accident to be inconsistent. The panel did not find Mr Caron’s explanations to be credible or reliable. The panel found that the messages were inappropriate and on the balance of probabilities were intended for Colleagues A, B, C and D. The allegations in respect of each Colleague B, C and D are considered in turn below. The panel found that the lack of consent was apparent from the messages exchanged with Colleague A, and Mr Caron’s apologies and statements such as “Please don’t get the police mate”, “It won’t happen again” and “I am so sorry” demonstrated his awareness that the image sent was inappropriate and unwelcome. Allegation 1 in relation to Colleague A was found proven by the panel. b. Colleague B - Around December 2022 and 27 May 2023 The allegation was admitted by Mr Caron. In addition, Witness A provided exhibited evidence consisting of screenshots of Facebook Messenger messages between Mr Caron and Colleague B. The panel found that the contents of Mr Caron’s messages were particularly inappropriate towards Colleague B and screenshots evidenced Mr Caron sending a sexually explicit image to Colleague B on two separate occasions. There were multiple messages exchanged, in which Mr Caron asked Colleague B for a “foursome” and stated, “maybe the offer is there for you to mull over hahahaha” and in another message he stated, “God loves a trier haha”. Following the sending of both images, Mr Caron apologised to Colleague B, stating that he was “pissed”, “I’m so drunk”, and “Colleague B – I am so sorry. Was absolutely off my head”. It is evident from the screenshots that Mr Caron was subsequently blocked by Colleague B. In response to the allegation during the disciplinary meeting with Witness A, Mr Caron stated: “I was so drunk and don’t remember. I don’t remember.” 8 During cross-examination, Mr Caron admitted to sending the two sexually explicit images to Colleague B and the inappropriate messages. He stated that this behaviour was out of character and that he was drunk. He maintained that the photographs were solely intended for [REDACTED] but, due to his [REDACTED], were sent to Colleague B. When asked about the “foursome” proposal, he responded that he could not say what he was thinking as he was drunk at the time. The panel found that the lack of consent was apparent from the messages exchanged, Colleague B blocking Mr Caron and from his apologies and statements such as “Colleague B not a word about this please” and “I am so sorry” demonstrated his awareness that the messages and images were inappropriate and unwelcome. The panel, therefore, found allegation 1 in relation to Colleague B proven. c. Colleague C - Around 27 May 2023 The allegation was admitted by Mr Caron. In addition, Witness A provided exhibited evidence consisting of screenshots of Facebook Messenger messages between Mr Caron and Colleague C. The panel noted that the messages sent by Mr Caron to Colleague C were inappropriate and the exchange continued over several messages. The lack of consent was apparent from the messages. In particular: Mr Caron – “Nah Colleague C I’ve not just sent you a pic have i” Colleague C – “Nope not had anything” Mr Caron – “I’m proper pissed” “Thought I send a pic of my cock to you” “[shocked, eyes and laughing emoji]” Colleague C – “[three laughing emojis]” Mr Caron – “You didn’t see it then” Colleague C – “Wow no” Mr Caron – “Thank gog” “[laughing emoji]” “I mean I’m not fussed just wouldn’t ent you thinking I’m a nob” “[laughing emoji]” “Wanna see!?” Colleague C – “No thanks” It is apparent from the screenshot that Colleague C then blocked Mr Caron. In response to the allegation during the disciplinary meeting with Witness A, Mr Caron stated: “I remember Colleague C as it was around Easter / April. It sounds awful. Oh my god.” 9 During cross-examination, Mr Caron admitted to sending the inappropriate messages to Colleague C. It was pointed out to Mr Caron that the message to Colleague C was sent at 09:47 on 27 May 2023, and the second explicit image sent to Colleague B was earlier on the same day at 09:03. Mr Caron stated that both messages were solely intended for [REDACTED] and that the mistake was due to his [REDACTED] impairment. The panel found that the content of the messages did not support Mr Caron’s account that they were sent by mistake and meant for [REDACTED]. The panel, therefore, found allegation 1 regarding Colleague C proven. d. Colleague D - 27 July 2023 The allegation was admitted by Mr Caron. In addition, Witness A provided exhibited evidence consisting of a screenshot of a Facebook Messenger message between Mr Caron and Colleague D. The panel noted that the screenshot showed a message sent to Colleague D at 07:03 and unsent at 09:00. No evidence was provided as to the content of that message; however, the image sent to Colleague A was sent on the same date at 07:39. The panel found that the unsending of the message supports that it was inappropriate, and without consent. Further, Mr Caron admitted in his evidence that the unsent message contained an explicit image of his penis. In the disciplinary meeting with Witness A, Mr Caron stated: “It was in the summer. I was trying to take a picture for [REDACTED] and put my phone in my pocket and it sent it. I did not have my glasses on and it sent to Colleague D.” The panel was careful to consider whether, on the balance of probabilities, a finding of fact could be made that Mr Caron sent a sexually explicit image to Colleague D. It considered the above reasons and Mr Caron’s account during the disciplinary meeting and in his evidence. He was consistent in accepting that the message sent was an explicit image of himself. The panel went on to consider, the veracity of Mr Caron’s explanation that the message was sent in error in a manner of a ‘pocket dial’ and found the explanation to be unreliable. The panel, therefore, found allegation 1 regarding Colleague D proven. 2. Your actions as set out in paragraph 1 were sexually motivated. This allegation was admitted by Mr Caron in relation to Colleagues A, B, C and D and supported by the evidence presented through the screenshots of Facebook Messenger messages. Mr Caron denied this allegation in relation to Colleague E. As the allegation at paragraph 1 was found not proven by the panel in relation to Colleague E, it is also not proven for allegation 2. The following considerations therefore relate only to Colleagues A, B, C and D. 10 Although Mr Caron admitted allegation 2 in respect of Colleagues A, B, C and D, he maintained that the sexual motivation was intended solely for [REDACTED] and not for each Colleague. The panel found that the sending of an explicit image of Mr Caron’s penis was sexual in nature and was sexually motivated, both for sexual gratification and in pursuit of a sexual relationship. In particular, in relation to the messages exchanged with Colleagues B and C, Mr Caron explicitly asked Colleague B for a “foursome” and asked Colleague C if she wanted to see his penis. Mr Caron provided screenshot evidence of Facebook Messenger messages between him and [REDACTED] showing him sending to her explicit images of his penis. However, none of the dates of those images match the dates of these allegations. The images provided are from 25 October 2019, 9 August 2022 and 28 February 2023. In Mr Caron’s oral evidence during the hearing, he accepted that his conduct was sexually motivated but stated that the intention was directed solely towards [REDACTED], and that the messages were sent by mistake due to his [REDACTED] impairment and alcohol intoxication. The panel did not accept Mr Caron’s explanation that the sending of the images and inappropriate messages was a mistake. The evidence shows inappropriate messages to four former colleagues, all female, on separate occasions over a period of time. The panel found this to be a repeated pattern of sexually motivated behaviour. This repeated nature of the messages and the content, including explicit sexual references, is inconsistent with accidental acts. This supports the panel’s finding that the conduct was sexually motivated. The panel found that the messages are clear evidence of Mr Caron pursuing a sexual relationship and sexual gratification. The panel, therefore, found allegation 2 proven in respect of Colleague A, B, C and D. The panel found the following particular of the allegation against you not proven, for these reasons: e. Colleague E - 25 October 2022 Allegations 1 and 2 regarding Colleague E were denied by Mr Caron. Witness A provided exhibited evidence consisting of a screenshot of a WhatsApp message between Mr Caron and Colleague E. This showed one message from Mr Caron stating, “Apologies if you saw that [shocked emoji]”. The Panel noted that Mr Caron has denied this allegation from the outset. In the disciplinary meeting with Witness A, he stated that he had sent a meme to Colleague E which he had intended to send to [REDACTED]. In Mr Caron’s email to the TRA on 16 August 2024, he stated:“…Again, in a separate incident, I had my glasses off and was 11 trying to send [REDACTED] a meme of Fred Dibner, which was joke at health and safety gone mad…” During Mr Caron’s evidence at the hearing, he maintained this account and stated that the meme was inappropriate as it contained the word “fucking”. He explained that he held Colleague E in high regard as she was his [REDACTED] and he spoke highly of her. He stated that he felt it was inappropriate to send her such a meme containing a swear word and therefore deleted it and apologised. He also stated that Colleague E’s name and [REDACTED] name both began with the same initial. The panel carefully considered the evidence before it and whether, on Mr Caron’s evidence, the meme and Mr Caron’s message apologising for the message would be sufficiently inappropriate to satisfy the allegation. The panel found that there was insufficient evidence presented before it to satisfy it that the message sent was inappropriate or sexually explicit. The panel therefore found allegation 1 and 2 in relation to Colleague E not proven. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 Caron, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Caron 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 building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. 12 The panel was not satisfied that the conduct of Mr Caron, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”) or Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel also considered whether Mr Caron’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that none of these offences were relevant. The panel noted that no concerns have been raised regarding Mr Caron’s behaviour towards pupils. The panel did not consider that Mr Caron’s behaviour would lead to pupils being exposed to or influenced by Mr Caron’s conduct in a harmful way. The panel noted that the allegations took place outside the education setting. However, the conduct was directed towards former female teacher colleagues and is relevant to Mr Caron’s professional conduct as a teacher. It demonstrates Mr Caron’s approach towards colleagues and raises concerns specifically about his repeated pattern of sexual behaviour towards female colleagues. This impacts his ability to conduct his teaching role. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Caron was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Caron’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. It 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 that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Caron’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Caron was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that none of these offences were relevant. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. 13 The panel considered that Mr Caron’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Caron’s actions constituted 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, namely: the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Caron which involved sending sexually motivated inappropriate messages, including explicit images to former female colleagues there was a strong public interest consideration. The public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Caron was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present, as the conduct found against Mr Caron was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Caron in the profession. Whilst there is evidence that Mr Caron had ability as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Caron in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standards of conduct expected of a teacher. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. 14 In view of 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 Caron. 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 were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions or purposeful destruction of evidence, especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences, or involved the coercion of another person to act in a way contrary to their own interests; 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 the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The panel did not accept Mr Caron’s explanation that his actions were not deliberate. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Caron was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. However, the panel considered Mr Caron’s explanation that the allegations occurred during a difficult period in his life. He stated that he and [REDACTED] were [REDACTED], he was struggling with his [REDACTED] undergoing [REDACTED] related tests, and consuming alcohol heavily. However, the panel did not receive any supporting evidence for these assertions. The panel did receive medical evidence confirming Mr Caron’s[REDACTED] caused by [REDACTED] and accepted this. The panel did not consider Mr Caron’s alcohol consumption, or whether he was drunk or hungover when sending the messages, as a mitigating factor. The panel agreed that Mr Caron did have a previous good history as a teacher, as put forward by Mr Caron in his oral evidence to the panel. In his email statement to the TRA sent on 16 August 2025, he stated that: “I pride myself on being a strong person with a great moral compass, with a clean personal and professional history with my near 10 year career as both a Teaching Assistant and Teacher.” The panel noted Mr Caron’s submission that this behaviour was out of character and this was supported by a message from Colleague A in which she stated “You are such a nice guy and feel this is out of character for you.” 15 The panel considered the five character references provided by Mr Caron, which were included in the hearing bundle. Mr Caron during his closing submissions, was asked and confirmed that the authors were aware of the allegations he faced. The statements were positive regarding his teaching ability, his professional judgement, and relationships with pupils. While some statements reflected limited knowledge of Mr Caron as a teacher, others described him as a “competent teacher” and highlighted his positive rapport with pupils. In addressing Mr Caron’s contribution to the school, one colleague wrote: “Sam contributed in many aspects of our school. He understood and supported the Catholic ethos, particularly when teaching Year 3 with the Sacramental program, which he took an active role in. He understood his role as a role model and always conducted himself correctly. The children he taught seemed to enjoy having him as a teacher and he had a positive effect on other year groups as well, particularly Year 2, who often wanted to show him their work.” The same colleague added: “It was always a pleasure working with Sam. He was a very likeable colleague who offered support to anyone who needed it. The children enjoyed being in his class and I always felt he was professional in his approach and conduct around the school.” Another colleague described Mr Caron as a committed member of staff, taking on responsibilities such as leading the science curriculum, planning away days, and supporting colleagues. He also led assemblies and embraced the school’s values, ensuring gospel principles were reflected in his teaching. A further colleague stated: “Sam joined the school and was a committed member of staff in the teaching, nurturing and development of the school”. The panel also considered Witness A’s oral evidence. When asked by the panel regarding Mr Caron’s character as a teacher, colleague and his contribution to the School, she described him as “an effective teacher, he had made wider contributions to after school clubs and fundraising. As a colleague always presenting as professional and to my knowledge conversations with other colleagues were professional, there were no concerns about his professional conduct.” The Panel found that although Mr Caron demonstrated that he was a competent teacher, he did not demonstrate exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel noted that throughout Mr Caron’s evidence at the hearing, in his email statement to the TRA dated 16 August 2024, and during the disciplinary meeting with the School, Mr Caron consistently accepted sending the messages, including explicit images as proven in the allegations, and acknowledged feeling remorse and embarrassment. However, the explanations he provided were found to be not credible. He continued to maintain that his actions were not deliberate, which demonstrated a failure to take full accountability. 16 Mr Caron accepted in his oral evidence that his behaviour could have been avoided by [REDACTED] and refraining from drinking alcohol resulting in becoming intoxicated. He stated that he has taken steps to prevent recurrence, including deleting social media accounts, separating personal and professional communications, avoiding alcohol consumption, undergoing [REDACTED], ongoing [REDACTED], and undergoing assessment for [REDACTED]. However, he provided no supporting evidence for these steps other than medical evidence of ongoing [REDACTED]. These actions indicate some limited degree of insight and remorse. The panel further considered Mr Caron’s insight into his behaviour. He reflected on what he would have done differently and expressed during the hearing that he “profoundly regretted the distress caused to colleagues.” In his email statement to the TRA, he wrote, “If I could change these events, I would in a heartbeat. I am sorry to those I have affected.” However, the majority of the mitigation Mr Caron provided during the hearing focussed on the consequences of his actions upon himself, rather than demonstrating empathy for his former Colleagues involved in the allegations. The panel further considered Mr Caron’s decision to contact the colleagues involved in the allegations during the School’s investigation to apologise, despite being specifically advised by Witness A not to do so. This demonstrated a lack of insight and it appeared self-serving rather than showing an understanding of the seriousness and gravity of his conduct. The panel therefore concluded that Mr Caron’s insight and remorse were limited. 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 would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Caron of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Caron. The panel decided that the repeated sending of sexually motivated messages, including of explicit images of his penis, on separate occasions to four female colleagues was serious misconduct and it was therefore a significant factor in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. 17 The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. 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 certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. This includes: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons The panel noted that although the acts were sexually motivated and had the potential to result in harm to persons, Mr Caron did not use his professional position to influence or exploit a person. The sexual misconduct was at the lower level of seriousness. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The panel considered that in this case, Mr Caron has some capacity to understand and reflect upon his actions, he had demonstrated some understanding of this. He expressed he is passionate about his teaching role and was a good teacher. The panel noted that Mr Caron in his oral evidence expressed that he has taken some steps to address his behaviour to avoid repetition of the allegations. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period of five years. 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. 18 In this case, the panel has found some 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. In this case, the panel has found the allegations not proven in relation to Colleague E. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Samuel Caron should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of 5 years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Caron 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, by o building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a finding of sending sexually explicit images to colleagues. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In considering 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 or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Caron, 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 has observed: “The panel noted that no concerns have been raised regarding Mr Caron’s behaviour towards pupils. The panel did not consider that Mr Caron’s behaviour would lead to pupils being exposed to or influenced by Mr Caron’s conduct in a harmful way.” 19 While the panel does not find that Mr Caron’s behaviour posed a threat to children, the panel has provided this observation: “The panel noted that the allegations took place outside the education setting. However, the conduct was directed towards former female teacher colleagues and is relevant to Mr Caron’s professional conduct as a teacher. It demonstrates Mr Caron’s approach towards colleagues and raises concerns specifically about his repeated pattern of sexual behaviour towards female colleagues. This impacts his ability to conduct his teaching role.” 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 the panel has set out as follows: “The panel noted that throughout Mr Caron’s evidence at the hearing, in his email statement to the TRA dated 16 August 2024, and during the disciplinary meeting with the School, Mr Caron consistently accepted sending the messages, including explicit images as proven in the allegations, and acknowledged feeling remorse and embarrassment. However, the explanations he provided were found to be not credible. He continued to maintain that his actions were not deliberate, which demonstrated a failure to take full accountability.” “The panel further considered Mr Caron’s decision to contact the colleagues involved in the allegations during the School’s investigation to apologise, despite being specifically advised by Witness A not to do so. This demonstrated a lack of insight and it appeared self-serving rather than showing an understanding of the seriousness and gravity of his conduct. The panel therefore concluded that Mr Caron’s insight and remorse were limited.” In my judgement, the lack of full insight and remorse means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour. I have therefore given this element some 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 has observed: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Caron which involved sending sexually motivated inappropriate messages, including explicit images to former female colleagues there was a strong public interest consideration. The public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Caron was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” 20 I am particularly mindful of the finding that a teacher sent sexually explicit images to colleagues in this case and the impact that such a finding has 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 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 or conduct likely to 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 Caron himself. The panel has commented: “The panel agreed that Mr Caron did have a previous good history as a teacher, as put forward by Mr Caron in his oral evidence to the panel. In his email statement to the TRA sent on 16 August 2025, he stated that: “I pride myself on being a strong person with a great moral compass, with a clean personal and professional history with my near 10 year career as both a Teaching Assistant and Teacher.” The panel noted Mr Caron’s submission that this behaviour was out of character and this was supported by a message from Colleague A in which she stated “You are such a nice guy and feel this is out of character for you.” The panel considered the five character references provided by Mr Caron, which were included in the hearing bundle. Mr Caron during his closing submissions, was asked and confirmed that the authors were aware of the allegations he faced. The statements were positive regarding his teaching ability, his professional judgement, and relationships with pupils.” “The Panel found that although Mr Caron demonstrated that he was a competent teacher, he did not demonstrate exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or having contributed significantly to the education sector.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Caron 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. 21 In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the lack of full insight or remorse. I have also placed considerable weight on the finding of the panel that the misconduct was serious and repeated. The panel has said: “The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Caron. The panel decided that the repeated sending of sexually motivated messages, including of explicit images of his penis, on separate occasions to four female colleagues was serious misconduct and it was therefore a significant factor in forming that opinion.” I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore to the contribution that Mr Caron 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 insight and remorse, 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 a 5-year review period. The Advice indicates that the public interest will weigh in favour of not offering a review period in cases that include serious sexual misconduct. In this case, I have balanced this consideration with the following comments made by the panel: “The panel noted that although the acts were sexually motivated and had the potential to result in harm to persons, Mr Caron did not use his professional position to influence or exploit a person. The sexual misconduct was at the lower level of seriousness.” “The panel considered that in this case, Mr Caron has some capacity to understand and reflect upon his actions, he had demonstrated some understanding of this. He expressed he is passionate about his teaching role and was a good teacher. The panel noted that Mr Caron in his oral evidence expressed that he has taken some steps to address his behaviour to avoid repetition of the allegations.” I have considered whether a 5-year 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 shorter review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These 22 elements are the serious and repeated nature of the misconduct found proven and the lack of full insight and remorse. I consider therefore that a 5-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mr Samuel Caron is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 2030, 5 years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Caron remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Caron has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: David Oatley Date: 25 November 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.