Mr Stephen Scott Robson

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 Scott Robson

Location teacher worked: Barnet, London.

Date of professional conduct panel: 23 to 26 June 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Scott Robson formerly employed in Barnet, London.

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 Scott- Robson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendation, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen Scott-Robson TRA reference: 22805 Date of determination: 26 June 2025 Former employer: East Barnet School, London (“School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 23 to 26 June 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Scott-Robson. The panel members were Mr Richard Young (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Geraldine Baird (lay panellist) and Mrs Diana Barry (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Harry Taylor of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield (Counsel) of Capsticks LLP (solicitors). Mr Scott-Robson was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation(s) set out in the notice of proceedings dated 7 February 2025. It was alleged that Mr Scott-Robson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: 1. You failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A in that: a. On or around 30 August 2023, you sent an email to Pupil A, including words to the effect of: i. ‘I was thinking of you again today’ ii. ‘I have a warm feeling in your presence’ iii. ‘I like being close to you and interacting with you’ iv. ‘I felt the urge to pen a poem about you’ v. ‘My intuition is we might be kindred spirits’ vi. ‘Might we not be good for each other?’ vii. ‘You have my admiration’ viii. ‘I am sure you will treat this communication confidentially’ b. On one or more occasions prior to 12 September 2023, shared personal information with Pupil A, [REDACTED]: i. [REDACTED] 2. Your conduct at any or all of 1(a) above was of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated. 3. Your conduct at 1(a)(viii) above demonstrated lack of integrity. In his response to the notice of referral, Mr Scott-Robson has admitted the facts of allegation 1 and has admitted allegation 3. Mr Scott-Robson denies allegation 2. Mr Scott-Robson has admitted that his conduct was unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 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 and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 27 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 28 to 145 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 146 to 183 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 document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witness called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] 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 Scott-Robson was employed as a teacher at the School from 2019. On 30 August 2023 Mr Scott-Robson sent an email to Pupil A expressing his feelings towards them. On 8 September 2023, Pupil A reported the email to the School, who investigated the matter. Mr Scott-Robson’s employment with the School ended on 18 October 2023. 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 failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A in that: a. On or around 30 August 2023, you sent an email to Pupil A, including words to the effect of: 6 i. ‘I was thinking of you again today’ ii. ‘I have a warm feeling in your presence’ iii. ‘I like being close to you and interacting with you’ iv. ‘I felt the urge to pen a poem about you’ v. ‘My intuition is we might be kindred spirits’ vi. ‘Might we not be good for each other?’ vii. ‘You have my admiration’ viii. ‘I am sure you will treat this communication confidentially’. On 13 March 2024, Mr Scott-Robson replied to the allegations, via his former legal representative, and admitted this allegation. The panel took this into account but also considered the allegation on its own volition based on the evidence available before it. A copy of the relevant email was annexed to Pupil A’s witness statement and to Witness A’s witness statement. The alleged comments set out above are all found within the email, sent to Pupil A on or around 30 August 2023. On balance, the panel considered that the evidence was relevant and that it would be fair to admit it. The panel also noted that hearsay evidence should be treated with caution and bore in mind that it must consider what weight to attach to the evidence when making its findings of facts. In this case, there were no competing factors as the parties did not contest the evidence. Pupil A’s statement was not sole or decisive but it did provide useful background context for the panel. The panel also had regard to Mr Scott-Robson’s response to having allegedly sent an inappropriate email to Pupil A, as investigated by the School at the time. To assist with those proceedings, Mr Scott-Robson prepared a written statement and a written apology for Pupil A, in which he admits, and expresses regret for, sending the email. He also admitted having sent the email during the investigation meeting on 18 September 2023. As such, the panel found that the evidence supported the fact that Mr Scott-Robson did send the email to Pupil A. The panel then considered whether the email demonstrated a failure to maintain appropriate boundaries by Mr Scott-Robson. At the time that Mr Scott-Robson emailed Pupil A, she was an [REDADCTED] student in his class. The email was sent during the summer break, when Mr Scott-Robson was on holiday. In the statement Mr Scott-Robson prepared for the School’s investigation, he explains that he understood the email was inappropriate and that he was ‘wrong to act’ as he did. Mr Scott-Robson explains in his witness statement for this professional conduct panel hearing that he had incorrectly perceived there to be a friendship between himself and Pupil A. He concedes that he had constructed ‘a fantasy version of reality and a version of Pupil A who could be’ his friend. Importantly, he admits that he knew sending the email was not permitted. 7 The panel was provided with a copy of the School’s relevant policies, including: 1. Acceptable Use Police, which states that staff are required to: i) Observe good computer etiquette at all times and never undertake actions that may bring the school into disrepute; and ii) Use the school network and computers only for educational purposes and those involving the operation of the school. 2. Communication policy/guidance, which states that staff should: i) Communicate with students in a respectful manner; ii) Communicate with students in a way that is focused on forming positive relationships with them […] however, relationships with students need to retain a professional distance. 3. Disciplinary Policy, which sets out that inappropriate behaviour towards students may amount to a finding of misconduct. It is clear to the panel that, based on the evidence available, including but not limited to the content of the email in question, Mr Scott-Robson’s email to Pupil A was not in the context of a teacher/student relationship. The panel’s view is that the email does not retain a professional distance, in breach of the School’s policy. Based on the School’s policies described above, Mr Scott-Robson would have reasonably been aware that his actions were in breach of the School’s conduct expectations. It is evident that Mr Scott- Robson considered his email to be an attempt to begin a social relationship with Pupil A, whilst they were still his pupil. The email was sent outside of school term time and was not related to Pupil A’s education. The panel finds that this took Mr Scott-Robson’s actions outside of what one would normally expect to be normal boundaries in the teaching profession. Indeed, this is something Mr Scott-Robson expressly agrees with in his witness statement. For the reasons above, the panel finds this allegation proven. b. On one or more occasions prior to 12 September 2023, shared personal information with Pupil A, [REDACTED]: i. [REDACTED] The panel noted that Mr Scott-Robson has not provided any evidence in relation to this specific allegation, but he has nonetheless admitted the allegation. Pupil A confirms in their witness statement that Mr Scott-Robson ‘had previously spoken to students about his personal life in class…[REDACTED]. I did not think this was particularly concerning at the time, and did not take much notice as it was mentioned during a lesson he was teaching.’ For the reason outlined above, the panel considered it fair to admit Pupil A’s witness 8 statement as hearsay evidence. The panel decided to attach reasonable weight to Pupil A’s statement given that it was consistent with an earlier statement they had made in Se