Mr Stephen Squire

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 Squire

Teacher reference number: 1788686

Teacher's date of birth: 11 November 1985

Location teacher worked: St Austell, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 May 2026

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 Squire formerly employed in St Austell, South West 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.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Mr Stephen Squire: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education May 2026 2 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of Agreed Facts 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Findings as to a conviction of a relevant offence 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 12 3 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stephen Squire Teacher ref number: 1788686 Teacher date of birth: 11 November 1985 TRA reference: 19395 Date of determination: 26 May 2026 Former employer: Penrice Academy, Cornwall (the “School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 26 May 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Squire. The panel members were Mr Nigel Shock (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Erin Sudds (teacher panellist) and Mrs Sharon Bhogal (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Evershed Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matila Heselton of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Squire was not present and was not represented. 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 Squire that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Squire provided a signed Statement of Agreed Facts and admitted that the facts amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer or Mr Squire. The meeting took place in private. 4 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 11 May 2026. It was alleged that Mr Squire was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. He was convicted in the Plymouth Crown Court on or around 8 November 2024 of; a. attempting to cause or incite a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; b. attempt to cause a child to watch a sexual act; and c. attempting to sexually communicate with a child. In a Statement of Agreed Facts, Mr Squire admitted the allegations and admitted that his conduct amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 4 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 27 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 28 to 63 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 67 to 68 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of 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 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Squire on 10 October 2025. 5 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE 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 Squire for the allegations 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 Squire was employed at the School as a teacher from 1 September 2019 to 16 July 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. You were convicted in the Plymouth Crown Court on or around 8 November 2024 of; a. attempting to cause or incite a child under 13 to engage in sexual activity; b. attempt to cause a child to watch a sexual act; and c. attempting to sexually communicate with a child. In the Statement of Agreed Facts, Mr Squire admitted allegation 1(a), allegation 1(b) and allegation 1(c). The panel considered a certificate of conviction from Plymouth Crown Court, confirming that Mr Squire was convicted on 8 November 2024 of the offences particularised in allegation 1(a), allegation 1(b) and allegation 1(c). The panel noted that Mr Squire was sentenced on 12 December 2024 to 3 years and 4 months of imprisonment, a sexual harm prevention order for 10 years and was added to the sex offenders register indefinitely. The panel considered the transcript of the sentencing remarks dated 12 December 2024, summarising the offences and the reason for the sentence imposed. The panel noted the following remarks: 6 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE  “Between 2 and 30 June of 2020, [Mr Squire] communicated with a person using the profile, ‘Gemma’, a girl aged 12, through the online chat platform, #1 Chat Avenue, and the social media applications Snapchat and Kik. In reality, ‘Gemma’ was an uncover [sic] police officer. It was [Mr Squire] who started the chat having sought out the team chat room on Chat Avenue.”  “[Mr Squire was] told by Gemma that she was 12 years old. [Mr Squire] received two photographs of Gemma which showed a young female, and Gemma described elements of her life consistent with being a child, including attending school. The jury rejected your assertion that you believed Gemma to be an adult engaged in roleplay and found that [Mr Squire] believed that she was under the age of 13.”  “The messages [Mr Squire] sent included, specifically in relation to Count 1, on 5 June, where [Mr Squire] encouraged Gemma to penetrate her vagina with her middle finger, and on 9 June, where [Mr Squire] asked if she wanted to repeat exploring her vagina with her finger again, and encouraged her to do it. In relation to Count 2 on 17 June 2020, [Mr Squire] sent two videos of yourself masturbating. Count 3, in addition to those matters, [Mr Squire] said that [he] wanted Gemma to get naked, for her to touch [his] penis.” The panel noted that there was no evidence of any exceptional circumstances to call into question the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel therefore accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the commission of these offences by Mr Squire. The panel therefore found allegation 1(a), allegation 1(b) and allegation 1(c) proven. Findings as to a conviction of a relevant offence Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to a conviction of 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 first considered whether the conduct of Mr Squire, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Squire 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 7 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE - having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions; - showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others; and - not undermining the rule of law.  Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach.  Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Squire’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting, as Mr Squire’s convictions relate to sexual offences against a child. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils and members of the public, given the harm caused by sexual offences against children. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Squire’s behaviour in committing the offences could affect 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 Squire’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, 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 communication with a child, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel considered Mr Squire’s behaviour in committing the offences to be grave, as his actions had a clear intention to engage in sexual communication with a child. Whilst Mr Squire was corresponding with an undercover law enforcement operative, Mr Squire was made aware that he was corresponding with a child but he continued to engage in sexual communication. The panel noted that Mr Squire’s offending behaviour was not a one off incident, as his behaviour was repeated on multiple occasions. The panel noted that Mr Squire had no previous convictions before thi