Mr Simon Tidbury

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 Tidbury

Teacher reference number: 1048788

Teacher's date of birth: 18 September 1989

Location teacher worked: Colchester, east of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 October 2022

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 Tidbury, formerly employed in Colchester, east of England.

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.

F Mr Simon Tidbury: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education October 2022 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 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 6 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 9 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Simon Tidbury Teacher ref number: 1048788 Teacher date of birth: 18 September 1989 TRA reference: 19378 Date of determination: 24 October 2022 Former employer: Bishop William Ward Church of England Primary School, Colchester. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened by virtual means, to consider the case of Mr Simon Tidbury. The panel members were Mr Clive Ruddle (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Charlotte Kelly (lay panellist) and Mrs Christine McLintock (teacher 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 Tidbury that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Tidbury 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, Louise Ravenscroft of Capsticks LLP or Mr Tidbury. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 11 October 2022. It was alleged that Mr Tidbury was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, at any time, in that: 1. On 16 February 2021, he was convicted of 2x without consent/ reasonable belief in consent record image under clothing to observe another and 1x consent/ reasonable belief in consent operate equipment beneath clothing of another contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Tidbury admitted both the facts of the allegation and that his conduct amounted to conviction 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 22 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting office presentations – page 23 to 31 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 32 to 48 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 Tidbury on 16 May 2022. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: 5 The panel carefully considered the case and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Tidbury for the allegation 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 Tidbury was employed as a classroom teacher at Bishop William Ward Church of England Primary School (“the School”) from 1 January 2014. On 26 June 2020, Mr Tidbury was arrested. His employment at the School came to an end on 31 December 2020. 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 16 February 2021, you were convicted of 2x without consent/ reasonable belief in consent record image under clothing to observe another and 1x without consent/ reasonable belief in consent operate equipment beneath clothing of another contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The panel has available to it the memorandum of conviction and print out of a PNC record confirming Mr Tidbury’s convictions of the above offences. The panel accepted the memorandum of conviction as proof of the commission of the offences concerned. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Tidbury in relation to the facts it found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Tidbury 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 showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others. The panel noted that the individual’s actions were relevant to teaching and working in an education setting. The victim of the criminal offences committed by Mr Tidbury was employed as a [REDACTED] at the School and he has admitted that the offences were committed on School premises. His actions fundamentally undermined the trust and confidence placed in him by the School and his ability to work with others in an education setting. 6 The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence would have been likely to have had an impact on the safety and security of members of the public, in the sense that his actions undermined his colleague’s right to feel safe and secure in her workplace. His actions resulted in a restraining order being imposed, and Mr Tidbury was required to register with the police in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 5 years. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Tidbury’s behaviour in committing the offence would be likely to affect public confidence in the teaching profession if Mr Tidbury was allowed to continue teaching. The panel noted that Mr Tidbury’s behaviour did not lead to a sentence of imprisonment. However, this was a case concerning an offence involving voyeurism (including upskirting). The Advice indicates that a conviction for any offence that relates to or involves such offences is likely to be considered “a relevant offence”. The panel also noted that Mr Tidbury’s sentence required him to participate in a Horizon programme for 31 days, to comply with any instructions to attend rehabilitation appointments, or participate in rehabilitation activity for up to 20 days and carry out 100 hours of unpaid work. As referred to above, in addition, Mr Tidbury received a restraining order not to contact the victim, nor to attend the School until 16 March 2023. He was also required to register with the police in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of 5 years. The panel found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Tidbury’s fitness to be a teacher. The panel found that this was a conviction of a relevant offence. Such a finding was necessary to reaffirm standards of expected behaviour and maintain confidence in the teaching profession. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings 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 is appropriate, the panel had to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the behaviour and any mitigation offered by Mr Tidbury 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. 7 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 protection of 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 panel’s findings against Mr Tidbury, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of members of the public, given that Mr Tidbury has been convicted for acts of voyeurism against a colleague. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Tidbury were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Tidbury was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel had no evidence of Mr Tidbury’s ability as an educator. The panel considered that the public interest weighed in favour of prohibition, as against Mr Tidbury’s own interests, given that his actions fundamentally undermined his role in the School. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that 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 Mr Tidbury’s behaviour exploited his position of trust and should therefore be viewed very seriously in ter