Mr Stephen White

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 White

Teacher reference number: 3746825

Teacher's date of birth: 16 February 1992

Location teacher worked: Crawley, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 16 to 24 March 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 White, formerly employed in Crawley, 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 White: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 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 White T eacher ref number: 3746825 Teacher date of birth: 16 February 1992 TRA reference: 21947 Date of determination: 24 March 2026 For mer employer: St Wilfrid’s Catholic School, Crawley. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 16 to 24 March 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Stephen White. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Stephanie Hayle (lay panellist) and Mr Philip Jolowicz (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jonathan White of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Michael Bellis of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Mr Stephen White was present and was represented by a lay representative, Ms Alia Torreadrado. 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 allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 18 December 2025. It was alleged that Mr Stephen White was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that: while employed as a teacher at St Wilfrid’s Catholic School in Crawley (“the School”): 1. Between around March 2020 and March 2023, he engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A in that he: a. Sent one or more emails to Pupil A of a personal nature; b. Provided Pupil A with his personal mobile phone number; c. Exchanged text messages with Pupil A of a personal nature; d. Spent time alone with Pupil A on School premises; e. Sent a letter to Pupil when there was no professional reason to do so; f. Took photographs with Pupil A on his mobile phone; g. Called Pupil A “a very special person”; h. Referred to Pupil A as ‘#1’; i. Sent photographs to Pupil A of his baby; j. Provided gifts to Pupil A. 2. Between around March 2020 and March 2023, he did not inform the School of his contact and/or communication with Pupil A; 3. Between around November 2021 and March 2023, he failed to follow one or more management advice and/or warnings from members of staff at the School to limit his contact and/or communication with Pupil A; 4. His conduct as set out in paragraphs 1, 2, and/or 3 was a failure to maintain proper professional boundaries; 5. His conduct as set out in paragraphs 2 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr White admitted allegations and admitted that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. He did not admit that his conduct 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 – pages 5 to 7 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 8 to 25 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 26 to 184 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 185 to 195 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 196 to 235 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Bundle of documents containing cards sent by pupils at the School to Mr White. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. 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 witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A - [REDACTED] Witness B - [REDACTED] Witness C - [REDACTED] Witness D - [REDACTED] Witness E - [REDACTED] Pupil B. Pupil C. Mr White also gave oral evidence. 6 Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel took advice from the legal advisor. Mr White had been employed by the School as a teacher of Religious Education (“RE”) between 1 September 2017 and 20 March 2023, initially as an unqualified teacher and subsequently as a qualified teacher following his qualification. Mr White had previously been employed by the School as a teaching assistant and cover supervisor between September 2013 and July 2016. Mr White had also been a pupil at the School. On 11 January 2023 a former pupil reported to the School that Mr White had been communicating with Pupil A by text message. The School reported the matter to the LADO on 12 January 2023. The School commenced an internal investigation on 19 January 2023, the same day on which Mr White was suspended. On 20 March 2023 Mr White was dismissed. The matter was referred to the TRA on 10 May 2023. The allegations concerned Mr White’s interactions with Pupil A during her time at the school. Pupil A had been in Mr White’s RE class [REDACTED]. She remained at the School for sixth form, though not in his class. Pupil A left the School in [REDACTED], having completed Year 13. 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. Between around March 2020 and March 2023, you engaged in an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A in that you: a. Sent one or more emails to Pupil A of a personal nature; Mr White admitted this particular and the panel was satisfied that this admission was consistent with the evidence and was therefore properly made. The panel was presented with copies of emails sent by Mr White from his school email account to Pupil A’s school email account. These emails began in March 2020 and continued until 2022 when, on Mr White’s evidence, contact with Pupil A mainly moved onto text messaging. The panel reviewed the emails and noted that as well as matters relating to school, they contained topics that did not relate to school. The panel further noted that the nature of the messages was personal in tone, volume and content. By way of example, the panel was 7 presented with an email sent by Mr White to Pupil A in May 2021 at 6.16pm which included the following: “Hey Hey Hey #1. Just wanted to say a massive thank you for my card and gifts…” “Thank you for being a good friend to me, also! I will miss you tremendously, you have no idea!” The email was signed off “Mr. Stephen x” A number of the emails were sent outside school hours, often after 9pm, and on weekends. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr White had sent Pupil A emails of a personal nature. b. Provided Pupil A with your personal mobile phone number; Mr White admitted this particular and the panel was satisfied that this admission was consistent with the evidence and was therefore properly made. Mr White admitted that he had exchanged text messages with Pupil A, something he could not have done unless she had his mobile phone number. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr White had provided Pupil A with his mobile phone number. c. Exchanged text messages with Pupil A of a personal nature; Mr White admitted this particular and the panel was satisfied that this admission was consistent with the evidence and was therefore properly made. The panel was presented with evidence of notes made by the investigation officer, including of her meeting with Pupil A. During that meeting, the investigation officer recorded, Pupil A told her that “they [her and Mr White] decided to text as they felt that they were being watched by others and that they can no longer email each other because they were aware that this could be monitored.” Pupil A showed the investigation officer the text messages. The investigation officer noted that there were “upwards of 100 text message exchanges from the previous evening alone”. The topics discussed in those messages included “football, University and a book that [Pupil A] was reading”. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the text messages exchanged between Mr White and Pupil A were of a personal nature, having regard to their volume, tone and content. d. Spent time alone with Pupil A on School premises; Mr White admitted this particular and the panel was satisfied that this admission was consistent with the evidence and was therefore properly made. The panel was presented with evidence from the Deputy Headteacher in which he stated that in January 2023 he had encountered Mr White and Pupil A alone together in the chapel. A member of staff had also reported to the Headteacher that Mr White and Pupil A had been alone together in the RE department office at 7.15am and that it was not the first time that they had been 8 seen alone together in that office. The panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr White had spent time alone with Pupil A on School premises. e. Sent a letter to Pupil A when there was no professional reason to do so; Mr White admitted this particular and the panel was satisfied that this admission was consistent with the evidence and was therefore properly made. The panel was presented with evidence from Pupil C who stated that Pupil A had told her about the letter and seen her with it. Pupil C explained th