Mr Simon Constantinou

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 Constantinou

Teacher reference number: 7748792

Teacher's date of birth: 17 May 1951

Location teacher worked: Warwickshire, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 02 December to 10 December 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 Simon Constantinou formerly employed in Warwickshire, West 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 Constantinou: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 9 Documents 9 Witnesses 10 Decision and reasons 10 Findings of fact 11 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 24 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 27 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Simon Constantinou Teacher ref number: 7748792 Teacher date of birth: 17 May 1951 TRA reference: 14987 Date of determination: 10 December 2024 Former employer: River House School, Warwickshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened between 2 to 10 December 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Constantinou. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist) and Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Sarah Price of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Heather Andersen of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Constantinou was present and was represented by Ms Zahra Ahmed of Counsel at 33 Bedford Row Chambers, instructed by Thompsons Solicitors. [REDACTED] The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 23 September 2024. It was alleged that Mr Constantinou was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: 1. He caused and/or permitted and/or failed to prevent the improper use of school funds, in that; a. Between 2006 and 2015 he claimed for and received ‘overtime’ payments in the sum of approximately £174,000; i. When he was not entitled to do so; ii. Without provision of supporting evidence; b. Between 2006 and 2015 he claimed for and received payment for travel expenses in the sum of approximately £21,000; i. At a rate higher than that which he was entitled to; ii. Without provision of supporting evidence; iii. Which were unnecessary and/or travel expenses which did not exist; c. Between 2004 and 2015 he obtained and/or retained a vehicle through the “Warwickshire County Council car Lease Scheme” at a cost of approximately £16,700 to Warwickshire County Council; i. When he was not entitled to do so in 2004 and/or 2006 ii. When he failed to notify the Council in 2004 that his eligibility had ended; iii. Without appropriate approval; d. Between 28 April 2014 and 27 March 2015, he received a payment in the sum of approximately £4,967 for Acting Head Teacher duties; i. Which he was not responsible for; ii. Which he was not performing; iii. Without notifying his employer he had ceased as acting Head Teacher; 5 e. Between 2014 and 2015 he claimed for and received payment for hotel accommodation in the sum of approximately £739.56, when he was not entitled to do so because it was not reasonably required; 2. He failed to comply with the Warwickshire County Council and/or River House School financial policies and/or procedures, including by; a. Introducing a guidance document dated 23 March 2011 titled “23 March 2011”; i. Which was contrary to the Warwickshire County Council Travel Code of Conduct; ii. Without appropriate consultation and/or approval from the Governing Body; iii. Which placed the School at financial detriment when compared to the Local Authority policy; iv. Which enabled him and/or other staff to benefit financially in comparison to the local authority policy. 3. He failed to follow appropriate recruitment practices and/or failed to appraise the school’s governance in the employment of Individual D including by; a. Failing to advertise the role; b. Failing to convene and/or record any interview with Individual D; c. Failing to seek the prior approval from the Governing Body; 4. His conduct as may be found proven at Allegations 1-3 above lacked integrity and/or was dishonest. Mr Constantinou denied the allegations. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in Individual A’s absence At the outset of the hearing, the panel considered an application made by the TRA to proceed in the absence of Individual A. The panel decided to proceed in Individual A’s absence. A copy of the panel’s decision on that application can be found in the separate written decision about Individual A. Application for additional documents The panel heard applications for additional documents to be admitted. 6 The TRA applied for a further version of the hearing bundle (with additional redactions) to be admitted, along with a statement from Individual A dated 10 November 2023 and a letter from Individual A’s [REDACTED] dated 7 November 2023. Counsel on behalf of Mr Constantinou made an application to admit a bundle of evidence, comprising of Mr Constantinou’s witness statement dated 2 December 2024, exhibits and some testimonials. The panel carefully considered the documents, and the submissions made. It accepted the legal advice provided. The panel was satisfied that all of the documents were relevant. The panel was disappointed that there had been disclosure of evidence so late, particularly in regards to Mr Constantinou’s witness statement. There was some duplication of documents, and this was also the third version of the hearing bundle that had been provided to the panel. However, the panel concluded that all of the documents should be admitted in the interests of fairness and justice. The documents were admitted. Application for privacy The panel heard an application on behalf of Mr Constantinou for part of the hearing to be heard in private. It was submitted that where matters relating to his [REDACTED] arise, these should be in private. The application was not opposed by the TRA. The panel carefully considered the submissions made by both parties. It accepted the legal advice provided. The panel recognised that there is a presumption that hearings should be held in public and that it was in the public interest to proceed in public. However, the panel may exclude the public from a hearing or any part of it if, given the reasons put forward, it does not consider it would be contrary to the public interest to hold part of the hearing in private. The panel concluded that it would not be contrary to the public interest and in the interests of justice to hold part of the hearing in private. The panel determined that those parts of the evidence pertaining to Mr Constantinou’s [REDACTED] were private matters and should not be placed in the public domain. The panel has decided that this hearing should take place in public, but that parts of the hearing relating to the [REDACTED] of Mr Constantinou will be heard in private. 7 Amendment to the allegation At the outset, the panel noted that allegation 1.d required an amendment. There appeared to be a typographical error in the labelling of the sub-particulars. The panel invited submissions from both parties, neither of which objected to the amendment. The panel accepted the legal advice provided. The panel considered that it had a discretion to make amendment to the allegations at any point before it makes its decision. In this case, it was a straightforward typographical amendment to the description of the sub-particular, which should be changed from (i) to (ii). Therefore, the panel decided to amend allegation 1.d as follows: d. Between 28 April 2014 and 27 March 2015, he received a payment in the sum of approximately £4,967 for Acting Head Teacher duties; i. Which he was not responsible for; ii. Which he was not performing; iii. Without notifying his employer he had ceased as acting Head Teacher; Application to admit hearsay At the end of the TRA’s case, the TRA made an application to admit the witness statement of Witness A as hearsay evidence. The TRA submitted that the statement of Witness A was relevant to the case and therefore the issue was about fairness. In brief, the TRA submitted: • this is not the sole or decisive evidence; • there is considerable other evidence in support of the documents; • there has not been much challenge to the evidence; • there is no reason why Witness A would fabricate their evidence; • these are serious charges, but the teacher is retired so it cannot be said that it will affect his career; • the TRA cannot give a good reason for Witness A’s non attendance because none has been given by Witness A; • the TRA have made numerous efforts to contact Witness A; 8 • the teacher had been given prior notice that Witness A may not attend the hearing. The application was opposed by counsel instructed on behalf of Mr Constantinou. In summary, it was submitted: • None of the statements have been agreed, and all witnesses were required to attend for cross examination; • An opportunity to cross examine Witness A has been lost; • Witness A’s evidence is not the sole evidence, but could be decisive. Witness A was the [REDACTED] and only they could answer questions in relation to the [REDACTED] in the School; • Unless the evidence is tested, the unreliability cannot be established; • It is not agreed that just because a teacher is retired that a serious outcome would not have an adverse impact. These are very serious allegations and have potential for reputation damage; • The TRA may have taken steps to secure attendance, but there is no good reason for non-attendance of the witness. The witness’ decision not to attend is of their own volition. There is no evidence of ill health or bereavement for example that a panel could consider t