Mr Simon Clague

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 Simon Clague

Teacher reference number: 8838574

Teacher's date of birth: 10 March 1966

Location teacher worked: Derbyshire, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 June 2023

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 Simon Clague, formerly employed in Derbyshire, East 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 Simon Clague: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2023 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Simon Clague Teacher ref number: 8838574 Teacher date of birth: 10 March 1966 TRA reference: 0017039 Date of determination: 30 June 2023 Former employer: Repton Independent School, Derbyshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 30 June 2023 by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Simon Clague. The panel members were Mrs Beverley Williams (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Stephen Chappell (lay panellist) and Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons 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 Clague that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Clague 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, Mr David Collins or Mr Clague. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 14 April 2023. It was alleged that Mr Clague was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 28 February 2022, he was convicted of eight counts of indecent assault on a girl under 16; 2. On 28 February 2022, he was convicted of gross indecency with a girl under 14. Mr Clague admitted both the facts alleged and that he had been convicted of a relevant offence. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, 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 25 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 26 to 29 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 30 to 81 Section 5: Teacher documents – page 82 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Clague on 10 August 2022. 5 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Clague 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. Mr Clague was employed as a PE teacher at the Repton Independent School (“the School”) between 4 September 1989 and 2022. On 21 February 2018, the School was advised that Derbyshire Police were investigating an allegation brought by a former pupil against Mr Clague and Mr Clague was suspended. 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 28 February 2022, you were convicted of eight counts of indecent assault on a girl under 16; 2. On 28 February 2022, you were convicted of gross indecency with a girl under 14. In a statement of agreed facts, Mr Clague admitted the allegations. The panel has seen the certificate of conviction and accepted it as conclusive proof of both the convictions and the facts necessarily implied by the convictions. Five counts of indecent assault and the count relating to gross indecency related to Victim P and concerned conduct whilst Victim P was [REDACTED], commencing on 24 June 1993. Two counts of indecent assault related to Victim S and concerned conduct when Victim S was [REDACTED]. One count of indecent assault related to Victim F and occurred when Victim F was [REDACTED], commencing in around August 1994. All three victims were pupils of the School at which Mr Clague taught. Mr Clague was sentenced to a total of seven years, eleven months’ imprisonment. Mr Clague was required to sign the sex offenders register indefinitely and was [REDACTED]. 6 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to convictions of a relevant offence. The offences were committed by Mr Clague prior to the coming into force of Teachers Standards, therefore the panel had regard to its knowledge and experience of teaching standards at that time and considered that the sexual abuse of children was a serious breach. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting. The offences were committed against pupils whom Mr Clague was entrusted to care for. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence had an impact on the safety and security of those pupils, as was illustrated by the victim impact statements that each victim prepared for the criminal court proceedings. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Clague’s behaviour in committing the offence would affect public confidence in the teaching profession, if Mr Clague was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Clague’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed, and which the Advice states is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity. The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such offences is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. These were particularly serious offences. Mr Clague groomed the pupils for his own sexual pleasure, irrespective of the harm he caused them. Mr Clague eventually pleaded guilty to the offences, so the victims did not have to go through the trauma of giving evidence. However, this was after some considerable time after the police started their investigation. This left those victims in a state of uncertainty as to whether they would have to give evidence. The panel also found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to his convictions was relevant to Mr Clague’s fitness to be a teacher. The panel considered that a finding that these convictions were for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of convictions of a relevant offence, 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 is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Clague and whether a prohibition order is necessary and proportionate. 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 the following to be relevant in this case, namely, the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils; the maintenance of public confidence in the profession; and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. There was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings of the sexual abuse of three children. Public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if such conduct was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. Declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also important as the conduct found against Mr Clague was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Whilst Mr Clague had worked at the School, for some considerable time, the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Clague in the profession. His behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and he exploited his position of trust. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour. 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. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a panel will be likely to consider a t