Mr Simon Graves

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 Graves

Teacher reference number: 9535730

Teacher's date of birth: 28 April 1973

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 29 to 31 January 2025, 4 to 6 February 2025, 14 March 2025, 11 April 2025 and 14 April 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 Graves formerly employed in Nottingham, 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 Graves: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 7 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 32 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 37 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Simon Graves Teacher ref number: 9535730 Teacher date of birth: 28 April 1973 TRA reference: 20326 Date of determination: 14 April 2025 Former employer: Carlton le Willows Academy, Nottingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 29 to 31 January, 4 to 6 February at Cheylesmore House, 5 Quinton Road, Coventry, CV1 2WT and the panel convened privately on 14 March, 11 and 14 April and in public on 11 April by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Simon Graves. The panel members were Ms Rosemary Joyce (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Beverley Montgomery (lay panellist) and Ms Gill Lyon (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Priyesh Dave of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Calla Randall of 3 Raymond Buildings instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Simon Graves was present and was represented by Mr Andrew Faux of The Reflective Practice. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 20 November 2024. It was alleged that Mr Simon Graves was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as the deputy head teacher at Carlton le Willows Academy, 1. Between September 2010 and July 2014 he behaved in an inappropriate manner towards Student A and/or failed to adhere to professional boundaries in that he: a) Was alone in his vehicle with Student A on more than one occasion b) Touched and/or rubbed Student A on the leg on more than one occasion 2. Between April 2010 and January 2011, he behaved in an inappropriate manner towards Student B and/or failed to adhere to professional boundaries in that he: a) Was alone in his office with Student B on more than one occasion b) Touched Student B over her clothing whilst she was in his office on more than one occasion c) Kissed Student B whilst she was in his office on one occasion d) Visited Student B at her home e) Touched Student B on her back whilst he visited her at her home f) Kissed Student B whilst he visited her at her home on one occasion g) Sent text messages of a sexual nature to Student B 3. Between approximately September 2009 and July 2014 he behaved in an inappropriate manner towards Student C and/or failed to adhere to professional boundaries in that he: a) Touched and/or rubbed Student C’s thigh b) Invaded Student C’s personal space by placing his face very close to hers and touching the collar of her blazer. 4. Between approximately September 2012 and December 2012, he behaved in an appropriate manner towards Colleague A in that he: a) Kissed Colleague A on school premises on one or more occasions; 5 b) Masturbated in front of Colleague A in his office; c) Engaged in a course of conduct towards Colleague A that was harassing in nature in that he; i) Drove to Colleague A’s house and waited outside in his car; ii) Waited by Colleague A’s car after school; iii) Purchased gifts for Colleague A. 5. His conduct at paragraphs 1, and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 was sexually motivated and/or was of a sexual nature. Mr Graves denied all of the allegations and that the allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Application to Amend the Allegations An application was made by the presenting officer to amend the Notice of Proceedings by amending Allegation 1: a) by replacing the whole allegation with “You were alone in your vehicle and touched and/or rubbed Student A on the leg on one or more occasion” b) by adding to the end “when alone with her in the office” Allegation 2: d) adding at the end “when her parents were not at home and you knew they weren't at home.” e) adding at the end “on the occasion when her parents were not at home” f) deleting “on one occasion” and adding at the end “on the occasion when her parents were not at home” Allegation 4 by replacing the word “appropriate” with “inappropriate”. 6 The panel has the power to, in the interests of justice, amend an allegation or the particulars of an allegation, at any stage before making its decision about whether the facts of the case have been proved. Before making an amendment, the panel was required to consider any representations by the presenting officer and by the teacher, and the parties were afforded that opportunity. The teacher’s representative consented to the application. The panel considered that the amendments proposed were either a correction of a typographical error or did not change the nature, scope or seriousness of the allegations. There was no prospect of the teacher’s case being presented differently had the amendment been made at an earlier stage, and therefore no unfairness or prejudice caused to the teacher. The panel therefore decided to amend the allegations as proposed. [REDACTED]. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology, Anonymised Pupil List and List of Key People – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of Hearing – pages 8 to 16 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency Witness Statements – pages 17 to 48 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency Documents – pages 49 to 411 Section 5: Teacher Documents – pages 412 to 532 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: [REDACTED] [REDACTED] The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). 7 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: • Student A – [REDACTED] • Student B – [REDACTED] • Student C – [REDACTED] • Colleague A – [REDACTED] • Colleague B – [REDACTED] Mr Graves also gave oral evidence. 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 Graves commenced employment as the Deputy Head Teacher at Carlton le Willows Academy (“the School”) from 1 September 2009 to 31 January 2014. During this time, Mr Graves set up the School’s girls’ football team. Colleague A started working at the School [REDACTED]. Following allegations of sexual assault, on 22 December 2018, Mr Graves was arrested. Mr Graves attended a voluntary interview with the police on 29 July 2019. A criminal case was brought against Mr Graves. On 15 July 2021, Mr Graves was found “Not Guilty” at Nottingham Crown Court. 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. Between September 2010 and July 2014 you behaved in an inappropriate manner towards Student A and/or failed to adhere to professional boundaries in that you: a) Were alone in your vehicle and touched and/or rubbed Student A on the leg on one or more occasion 8 In arriving at their decision, the panel took account of the legal advisor’s advice regarding the historical nature of the allegations and accurate memory of evidence. The panel had at its forefront the time between each separate alleged incident and this hearing. In the absence of any specific medical or psychological evidence on memory, the panel considered the judgment of Gestmin SGPS S.A. v Credit Suisse (UK) Limited, Credit Suisse Securities (Europe) Limited and the broader comments on memories, how memories can be unreliable, the impact on memory caused by the preparation of witness statements and preparing for a hearing. The panel had regard to the court’s observations to place a greater reliance on documentary evidence and known or probable facts. Where documentary evidence was not available, the panel exercised significant caution in assessing witness credibility. Mr Graves denied this allegation. The panel heard that once Mr Graves started his role at the School, he organised and coached the girls’ football team after school. Mr Graves was appointed as a deputy headteacher, with designated safeguarding lead and pastoral responsibilities. One of the students to join the after-school club was Student A. Student A was not taught by Mr Graves but he was her football coach and he provided support to Student A after her [REDACTED]. Near the start of Student A’s evidence, she explained that she idolised Mr Graves. The panel heard that Mr Graves had given Student A and the girls a chance. Student A stated that she “loved him so much” for what he did for them, saying “He was amazing”, he “took us on holiday”. The panel heard from Student A and Mr Graves that on occasions, Mr Graves would drive students from football to their respective houses. Student A said that Mr Graves would take her home with Students J and K. The order in which the pupils were usually dropped off was Student J, then Student A and lastly Student K. On