Mr Stephen Kenyon

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 Stephen Kenyon

Teacher reference number: 1170019

Teacher's date of birth: 29 January 1968

Location teacher worked: Hampshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 4 November 2024 to 6 November 2024

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 Stephen Kenyon of Lymington, South East 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.

Mr Stephen Kenyon: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 21 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen Kenyon Teacher ref number: 1170019 Teacher date of birth: 29 January 1968 TRA reference: 22127 Date of determination: 6 November 2024 Former employer: The School Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 4 to 6 November 2024 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Kenyon. The panel members were Mr Terry Hyde (former teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Laura Mullin (lay panellist) and Mrs Lynn Seal (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges of Kingsley Napley LLP. Mr Kenyon was not present or represented at the hearing. The hearing took place in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 31 July 2024. It was alleged that Mr Kenyon was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as [REDACTED] Teacher at [REDACTED]: 1. Between 2018 and 2019, he touched Pupil B in an inappropriate manner in that he: a) On one or more occasions touched and/or put his hand(s) on her shoulder(s) and/or back; and/or b) On one or more occasions touched her on and/or near her breast(s); and/or c) On one or more occasions touched and/or put his hand on her hand; 2. On or around 11 June 2021, he touched Pupil D in an inappropriate manner in that he: a) Put his hand under her armpit; and/or b) Touched her bra and/or near her breast with his hand/finger(s); 3. His conduct at paragraphs 1 and/or 2 above was of a sexual nature. In the response form to the Notice, Mr Kenyon confirmed that the allegations were not admitted. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of Mr Kenyon The panel considered an application from Mr Bridges to proceed in the absence of Mr Kenyon. Mr Bridges submitted that Mr Kenyon had expressly made his position clear in correspondence with the TRA. This included:  In email correspondence dated 11 January 2024, Mr Kenyon emailed the TRA and stated: “I do not wish to participate in your investigation… Your case I am afraid will have to run in my absence…”;  In the notice of allegations response form, dated 18 August 2024, Mr Kenyon confirmed he would not be engaging in these proceedings; 5  In email correspondence, dated 20 August 2024, on Mr Kenyon’s behalf, which stated: “I have sent a response to the misconduct email already, stating Steve will not be attending the hearing. Steve does NOT want to participate in this process.” The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the case of R v Jones [2003] 1 AC 1 (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly GMC v Adeogba; GMC v Visvardis [2016] EWCA Civ 162). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings ("the Notice") had been sent in accordance with Rules 5.23 and 5.24 of the Teacher Misconduct: Disciplinary Procedures for the Teaching Profession 2000 ("the Procedures") and that the requirements for service had been satisfied. Furthermore, Mr Kenyon was clearly aware of the hearing and had responded to the Notice, confirming that he will not be attending. The panel went on to consider whether to proceed in Mr Kenyon's absence or to adjourn, in accordance with Rule 5.47 of the Procedures. The panel had regard to the fact that its discretion to continue in the absence of a teacher should be exercised with great caution and with close regard to the overall fairness of the proceedings. The panel gave careful consideration to the fact that Mr Kenyon is not in attendance and will not be represented at this hearing, should it proceed, and the extent of the disadvantage to him as a consequence. On balance, t he panel decided that the hearing should continue in the absence of Mr Kenyon for the following reasons:  Mr Kenyon had not sought an adjournment and there was no medical evidence before the panel which indicated that Mr Kenyon was unfit to attend the hearing due to ill-health.  The panel was satisfied that Mr Kenyon’s absence was voluntary and he had waived his right to attend.  Given Mr Kenyon’s non-engagement, there was no indication that he might attend at a future date such that no purpose would be served by an adjournment.  There is a public interest in hearings taking place within a reasonable time.  There is a burden on all professionals who are subject to a regulatory regime to engage with their regulator.  There are witnesses present to give evidence to the panel who would be significantly inconvenienced were the hearing to be adjourned. 6 Having decided that it is appropriate to proceed, the panel would strive to ensure that the proceedings are as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Kenyon is neither present nor represented. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 5 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 21 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 22 to 35 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 35 to 659 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called on behalf of the TRA:  Witness A;  Pupil B ([REDACTED]);  Pupil E ([REDACTED]). No witnesses were called on behalf of the teacher. 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 Kenyon was employed as a Subject Leader for [REDACTED] at the School from 2013. Pupil D and Pupil E were pupils at the School and were taught [REDACTED] lessons by Mr Kenyon. On Friday 11 June 2021, the mother of Pupil D, [REDACTED], called the School to advise that Pupil D had told her mother that Mr Kenyon had touched the side of her breast, with his fingers along the seam of her bra during a lesson. 7 On Monday 14 June 2021, the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) contacted the School. The LADO told the School that the police had informed them a parent of Pupil D had contacted the police over the weekend and the police had initiated their own criminal investigation. In August 2021, the School was informed by the police and LADO, that it could continue with its own internal investigation as the police were taking no further action. At the start of the new academic year, the School undertook a number of interviews with relevant pupils and Mr Kenyon. In September 2021, Pupil B disclosed to a pastoral staff member at the School that Mr Kenyon had inappropriately touched her during lessons in the academic year of 2018/19, whilst she was in [REDACTED] and that she had also explained this to the police whilst being asked questions about Pupil D’s allegations. This concern then also formed part of the School’s internal investigation. Later in September 2021, the School was further advised by the LADO to pause its investigation, as the original police decision to take no action was subject to a review. Following this review, Mr Kenyon was charged with sexually assaulting Pupil D. He stood trial in July 2022 at [REDACTED] Crown Court (“the Crown Court”) and was found ‘not guilty’ of the charge by the jury. Following the conclusion of the criminal proceedings, the School was informed it could continue its internal investigation. At the conclusion of the School’s internal investigation and disciplinary processes, it made a referral to the TRA, which has resulted in this hearing. It is helpful to set out at this point that it is a settled legal position that a professional regulator can bring disciplinary proceedings in relation to the same conduct which was subject to an acquittal in the criminal courts. The higher courts have highlighted (such as in the case of Ashraf v General Dental Council [2014] EWHC 2618 (Admin)), that the nature of regulatory proceedings has a different purpose to criminal proceedings, there are different rules of evidence and a different (lower) standard of proof that apply in these proceedings. The previous investigations in this case give this panel the ability to assess the evidence of various witnesses and Mr Kenyon from:  Their accounts given in the School’s internal investigation and disciplinary processes;  Their accounts to the police in its criminal investigation;  Their accounts in oral evidence during the Crown Court trial;  Their accounts to the TRA during its investigation;  Their accounts in oral evidence at this TRA hearing. 8 Whilst the panel took into consideration the previous accounts given by relevant persons in these investigations, the panel gave no weight to the conclusions made by others in those investigations. It has assessed the case only on the evidence placed before it. In making its findings the panel has followed the guidance of its legal adviser in regard to assessing the evidenc