Mr Simon Murch

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 Murch

Teacher reference number: 0047214

Teacher's date of birth: 28 July 1968

Location teacher worked: Sheffield, Yorkshire and The Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 July 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 Murch formerly employed in Sheffield, Yorkshire and The Humber.

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 Murch Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Simon Murch Teacher ref number: 0047214 Teacher date of birth: 28 July 1968 TRA reference: 22585 Date of determination: 18 July 2025 Former employer: Monteney Primary School, Sheffield Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened virtually via Microsoft Teams on 18 July 2025 to consider the case of Mr Simon Murch. The panel members were Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Suhel Ahmed (teacher panellist) and Mrs Michele Barlow-Ward (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Jamila Bernard-Stevenson of Blake Morgan 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 Murch that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Murch 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 a presenting officer, Mr Murch or any representative appointed on his behalf. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 19 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Murch was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. He raped a girl under 13 on 24 June 2023 under s.5 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Murch admitted the facts of the allegations and that each of the offences amounted to a conviction for a relevant offence. 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 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of meeting and response – pages 6 to 13 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 14 to 16 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 17 to 121 The panel members confirmed that they had read all the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2022, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Murch on 13 February 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Murch for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. 5 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. The panel proceeded to consider the case carefully, having read all of the documents, and reached a decision. It accepted the legal advice provided. Mr Murch was formerly employed as a religious education teacher at Monteney Primary School (‘the School.’) Mr Murch’s employment commenced on 1 September 2010 and ended on 4 September 2023 when he resigned. On 16 July 2023, Mr Murch was arrested in Sheffield for alleged the rape of a child under the age of 13 in [REDACTED]. At this time, Mr Murch was suspended from his role at the School. Following this, Mr Murch was remanded in custody and charged. On 5 September 2023, Mr Murch pleaded guilty and was convicted of this offence. On 15 February 2024, Mr Murch was sentenced to 8 years and 6 months imprisonment (1 year of which is to be served on extended licence). 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. You raped a girl under 13 on 24 June 2023 under s.5 the Sexual Offences Act 2003 The panel was presented with a statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Murch, in which this allegation was admitted. The following matters were agreed: i. On 16 July 2023, Mr Murch was arrested for the alleged rape of a child under the age of 13 and remanded in custody. ii. On 5 September 2023, Mr Murch was convicted at [REDACTED] of rape of a child under 13 on 24 June 2023. iii. On 15 February 2024, Mr Murch was sentenced to 8 years 6 months imprisonment (one year of which to be served on extended licence), a Sexual Harm Prevention Order and ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £228. The panel was presented with a certificate of conviction from [REDACTED] Crown Court and a copy of Mr Murch’s PNC record, confirming that Mr Murch was convicted, on 15 February 2024, of the offence particularised at allegation 1. 6 The panel was presented with the sentencing remarks of the presiding Judge sitting at Court on 15 February 2024, summarising the offences and the reasons for the sentence imposed. The panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the commission of this offence by Mr Murch. In light of this and Mr Murch's admissions, it found allegation 1 proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the conviction amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, which Mr Murch admitted. 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Murch in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Murch 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  treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position  having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ wellbeing, in accordance with statutory provisions  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 and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality.  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which sets out their professional duties and responsibilities, for example:  Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play. In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all practitioners should make sure their approach is child centred. This 7 means that they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child (KCSIE 2023.) Further and in addition, the panel noted that, pursuant to the Advice it is likely that:  A conviction for any offence that has led to a term of imprisonment, including any suspended sentence will be considered “a relevant offence".  A conviction for any offence that relates to sexual activity will be considered “a relevant offence". In addition to the above, the panel determined that Mr Murch’s actions were relevant to teaching and working with children as the criminal conviction concerned sexual activity with a child. The panel determined that both the nature and gravity of this offence were very serious. Mr Murch had been convicted of the rape of a child who was under the age of 13. The serious nature of the conviction was reflected in the sentence of imprisonment which was imposed by the Judge at the sentencing hearing. In the Judge’s sentencing remarks, he noted that Mr Murch ‘had been subjected to safeguarding training.’ He went on to say that Mr Murch ‘now accept[ed] that you must have chosen to ignore the obvious fact that she was much younger and convinced yourself that she was of legal age.’ The panel considered whether there were any relevant mitigating circumstances but decided that none were relevant to this part of its decision. In conclusion and for all these reasons, the panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was directly relevant to Mr Murch’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings, 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: 8  the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and 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 nature of the offence for which Mr Murch had been convicted, there was an extremely strong public interest consideration regarding the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and other members of the public. Mr Murch’s actions raised obvious and significant public and child protection concerns. Furthermore, the panel determined that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if appropriate action was not taken with respect to Mr Murch’s case. As a result of this, the panel decided that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present. Although Mr Murch’s competence as an educator has not been called into question, in light of the nature of the allegations in this case the panel concluded there was not a strong public interest consideration in retaining him in the profession. Notwithstanding 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 Murch In carrying out the balancing exercise, the panel had regard to the public interest considerations both in favour of, and against, prohibition as well as the interests of Mr Murch. 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 pertain to this case are set out below:  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are ‘relevant matters’ for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosures;  misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk;  sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature. . . 9  failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE);  violation of the rights of pupils; Even though 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 considered that the following mitigating factors are present in this case:  Mr Murch appeared to have had an otherwise unblemished record.  Mr Murch had engaged with the TRA and made full admissions in the statement of agreed facts.  It is noted in the transcript from Mr Murch’s sentencing hearing that he had difficult personal circumstances at the time of the misconduct. Weighed against this and the behaviours set out above, the panel considered there were aggravating features in this case, including that:  Mr Murch’s actions were deliberate and he was not acting under duress.  The panel noted the remarks of the sentencing Judge in the Crown Court who stated that: ‘A was in fact, 12 years old. Even though you did not know that before you met her, it would have been plain to you when you met her than (sic) she was significantly younger than 18.’  Mr Murch’s actions amounted to a clear breach of the Teachers' Standards and raised serious public and child protection concerns.  Mr Murch has been convicted of and sentenced for a very serious offence involving a child, for which he received a custodial sentence and is subject to a sexual harm prevention order for an indefinite period of time.  His actions involved the harm and abuse of a child.  Mr Murch was an experienced teacher, leader and a regional representative for a recognised union who was in a position of trust and responsibility. He was expected to be a role model. He had fallen significantly short of the standards expected of him in that regard.  It was noted in the Judge’s sentencing remarks that Mr Murch took steps to conceal the fact that he was with an underaged girl from [REDACTED]. 10  Mr Murch’s conduct was premeditated. There was evidence which indicated that Mr Murch had every intention of continuing his sexual relationship with the underaged girl if his conduct had not been detected. Matters came to light before their next planned meeting when the child told her parents about events [REDACTED]. 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 was sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Murch of prohibition. Mr Murch’s actions were fundamentally incompatible with his being a teacher which Mr Murch acknowledged in his response to the allegation. This was conduct at the most serious end of the spectrum. The nature and gravity of this offence was a matter of significant concern. There were, accordingly, particularly strong public interest considerations in this case in terms of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and other members of the public, public confidence in the teaching profession and the declaring of proper standards of conduct in this case. Mr Murch’s behaviour led to him receiving a significant sentence, which is indicative of the seriousness of the offences. The panel was therefore of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Murch. Accordingly, it made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate to recommend that a review period of the order should be considered. 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 behaviours that, if proved, would militate against the recommendation of a review period. 11 These behaviours include any sexual misconduct involving a child, which was directly applicable in this case. In light of this and the panel's comments, above, regarding the seriousness of these offences, the panel decided its findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate. The public interest considerations that Mr Murch’s conviction gave rise to were such that this was necessary, appropriate and proportionate. Having regard to the nature of the offences and the sentence he received, Mr Murch’s actions are fundamentally incompatible with his being a teacher. 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. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Simon Murch should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Murch 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  treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position  having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ wellbeing, in accordance with statutory provisions  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 and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. 12  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which sets out their professional duties and responsibilities, for example:  Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play. In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all practitioners should make sure their approach is child centred. This means that they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child (KCSIE 2023.) The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Murch involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The findings of misconduct are extremely serious as they include a teacher being convicted of raping a girl aged under 13. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing 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 a relevant conviction, 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 Murch, 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 makes this observation: “In the light of the nature of the offence for which Mr Murch had been convicted, there was an extremely strong public interest consideration regarding the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and other members of the public. Mr Murch’s actions raised obvious and significant public and child protection concerns.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. The panel does not comment directly on Mr Murch’s insight into and remorse for his actions, although there is a suggestion that he has recognised that his behaviour was incompatible with working as a teacher. In the absence of clear evidence that Mr Murch has developed full insight and remorse, I have no alternative but to conclude that there is a risk of repetition that puts the future wellbeing of pupils at risk. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. 13 I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel makes this observation: “Furthermore, the panel determined that public confidence in the profession would be undermined if appropriate action was not taken with respect to Mr Murch’s case.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher being convicted of the rape of a girl aged under 13 in this case and the very negative impact that such a finding is likely to have 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 a relevant conviction, 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 Murch himself. The panel makes this comment: “Although Mr Murch’s competence as an educator has not been called into question, in light of the nature of the allegations in this case the panel concluded there was not a strong public interest consideration in retaining him in the profession.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Murch 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. In this case, I have placed very considerable weight on the extremely serious nature of the panel’s findings. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Murch 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, 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 that no provision should be made for a review period. In doing so, the panel makes reference to the Advice which indicates that there are behaviours that, if proved, would militate against the recommendation of a review period. 14 These behaviours include any sexual misconduct involving a child, which was directly applicable in this case. The panel goes on to make these comments:: “In light of this and the panel's comments, above, regarding the seriousness of these offences, the panel decided its findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate. The public interest considerations that Mr Murch’s conviction gave rise to were such that this was necessary, appropriate and proportionate. Having regard to the nature of the offences and the sentence he received, Mr Murch’s actions are fundamentally incompatible with his being a teacher.” I have considered whether not allowing a 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 review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the extremely serious nature of the misconduct found and the injury that Mr Murch’s actions are likely to have done to the standing of the profession. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Simon Murch is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegation found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Murch shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Simon Murch has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 23 July 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.