Mr Simon Schofield

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 Schofield

Teacher reference number: 0941686

Teacher's date of birth: 12 November 1965

Location teacher worked: Thirsk, Yorkshire and the Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 October 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 Schofield, formerly employed in Thirsk, 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 Schofield: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 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 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Simon Schofield Teacher ref number: 9041686 Teacher date of birth: 12 November 1965 TRA reference: 24207 Date of determination: 2 October 2025 Former employer: Yorkshire Education Ltd Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 October 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Simon Schofield. The panel members were Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Aisha Miller (teacher panellist) and Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Clare Strickland of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Dominic Davidson of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Schofield was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of hearing dated 8 July 2025. It was alleged that Mr Schofield was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 29 November 2023, he was convicted at the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of Caen - France for the offence of Foreign Leg/Sexual Assault of Female Child Under 13 contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s7. Mr Schofield has not responded to the allegation or attended the hearing. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegation is not admitted. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of referral and notice of proceedings – pages 4 to 17 Section 2: Evidence of correspondence to teacher – pages 31 - 65 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 67 to 69 Section 4: Teacher documents – none In addition, the panel agreed to accept an additional document – a Post Office delivery receipt dated 27 August 2025. 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 Procedures. Witnesses The panel did not hear any oral evidence from witnesses. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: 5 In July 2024, the TRA received information from [REDACTED] an allegation that on 29 November 2023, Mr Schofield had been convicted in France for a criminal offence of sexual assault on a female child under 13. On 19 March 2025, Yorkshire Education confirmed that Mr Schofield had been employed by them as a supply teacher between 18 March 2021 and 14 May 2024. He had not disclosed any conviction to them and had emailed them on 14 May 2024 to resign with immediate effect, saying he had to go to France for a family emergency. Agency records suggest that he worked as a teacher at various schools between December 2023 and his resignation in May 2024. Findings of fact The panel found the following allegation against you proved, for these reasons 1. On 29 November 2023, you were convicted at the Criminal Division of the Court of Appeal of Caen - France for the offence of Foreign Leg/Sexual Assault of Female Child Under 13 contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s7. The panel was not provided with a certificate of conviction, but the evidence before it demonstrated that the TRA had taken all reasonable steps to obtain proof of the conviction. That evidence included a Police National Computer (PNC) printout which records that Mr Schofield was convicted as set out in the allegation. Other evidence before the panel explained that under arrangements in place between the UK and France, information about UK nationals convicted in France is passed to the UK authorities and recorded on the PNC. The panel considered whether there was sufficient evidence to establish that Mr Schofield was the person convicted in France and was satisfied that there was. The PNC printout included identification details and the panel had no evidence to suggest that the process of identification of Mr Schofield as the person convicted in France had been flawed or resulted in mis-identification. The panel did not consider it necessary to draw any adverse inference from the fact that Mr Schofield provided no response to the allegation, as the other evidence available was sufficient to prove the allegation. The panel decided that on the balance of probabilities, Mr Schofield was convicted as set out in the allegation. 6 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proven allegation amounted to a conviction for a relevant offence. 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 noted that Mr Schofield was convicted in France but was satisfied that his conviction was for a matter that would be a criminal offence in England and Wales. Therefore, is it capable of amounting to a relevant offence. The panel first considered whether Mr Schofield’s proven conduct involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Schofield 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel had no evidence about the nature of the relationship between Mr Schofield and the victim of his sexual assault but considered that the use of the word “pupil” in these standards could properly be interpreted to include a child under the age of 13 in the UK or France. The panel noted that Mr Schofield’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and/or working in an education setting, as any sexual assault on a child, whether within an education setting or not, is highly relevant to the person’s fitness to teach. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had a serious impact on the safety and/or security of the child in question. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Schofield’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect 7 public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Schofield’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, albeit that it was suspended, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity with a child, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel had limited information about the circumstances of the offence, but was satisfied that by its nature, it was an extremely serious offence. It involved a sexual assault on a child under 13. The panel had no evidence of any mitigating circumstances relevant to the offence. The panel concluded that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Schofield’s ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence 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 finding in respect of a conviction 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 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 safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. 8 In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Schofield, which involved a 2023 conviction for sexual assault on a child under 13, there was a strong public interest consideration in the future protection of children. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Schofield were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was also of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was present as the conduct found against Mr Schofield 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 Schofield in the profession. The panel had no evidence about Mr Schofield’s qualities as a teacher, and in any event, the conviction was so serious that his interests did not outweigh the need to take significant action to address the wider public interest. 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 Schofield. 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;  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 well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk;  abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils);  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;  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; 9 In identifying these behaviours as relevant, the panel concluded that the use of the word “pupil” could properly be interpreted to include a child under the age of 13 in the UK or France. 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 any mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was no evidence that Mr Schofield actions were not deliberate or that he was acting under extreme duress. The panel had no evidence of any previous findings against Mr Schofield, but equally there was no evidence that he had in the past demonstrated high standards in his personal and professional conduct or had contributed significantly to the education sector. 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 Schofield 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 Schofield. The seriousness of his criminal conviction and sentence, and the risk of harm to a child that it caused, was 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. 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. 10 These include: • 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; • any sexual misconduct involving a child; Notwithstanding the limited information available, it was clear to the panel that Mr Schofield’s offence involved serious sexual misconduct (as evidenced by the sentence) towards a child under 13. The panel recognised that this list is not exhaustive and considered whether there were any other circumstances that might indicate a review period would be appropriate. It concluded there were not. There was no evidence of insight, remorse or remediation from Mr Schofield. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provision for a review period. 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 Schofield should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Schofield 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 11 o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Schofield involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher receiving a conviction for serious sexual misconduct involving a child. This conviction led to a sentence of imprisonment (albeit suspended). 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 Schofield, 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 records that it “…noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had a serious impact on the safety and/or security of the child in question.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the fact that the panel makes no record of have seen any evidence that Mr Schofield has demonstrated any remorse for or insight into his behaviour. In my judgement, the lack of such evidence means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable 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 records that it “…considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found 12 against Mr Schofield were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding in this case of a teacher receiving a conviction for sexual misconduct involving a child 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 Schofield himself. The panel notes that it “…had no evidence of any previous findings against Mr Schofield, but equally there was no evidence that he had in the past demonstrated high standards in his personal and professional conduct or had contributed significantly to the education sector.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Schofield 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 considerable weight on the very serious nature of the misconduct found by the panel. I have also noted the absence of evidence of any insight and/or remorse. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Schofield 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, it makes reference to the Advice which states: “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. 13 These include: • 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; • any sexual misconduct involving a child;” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate response to the misconduct found 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 very serious nature of the misconduct found, which in my judgment constitutes behaviour incompatible with working as a teacher, as well as the lack of evidence of insight and remorse. 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 Schofield 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 allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Schofield 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 Schofield 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: 6 October 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.