Mr Stuart Balfour

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 Stuart Balfour

Location teacher worked: Hindhead, South East of England

Date of professional conduct panel: 18 to 20 March 2026 and 23 April 2026

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 Stuart Balfour formerly employed in Hindhead, South 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.

OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Stuart Balfour: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 12 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 17 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stuart Balfour TRA reference: 24375 Date of determination: 23 April 2026 Former employer: St Edmund’s School, Hindhead Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 18 to 20 March 2026 and reconvened on 23 April 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Stuart Balfour. The panel members were Mr Richard Young (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Susan Humble (lay panellist), and Ms Elizabeth Kitcatt (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Katie Garcia of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Wen Yeap of Browne Jacobson solicitors. Mr Balfour was present and was represented by Miss Laura Barbour of Lincoln House Chambers via her instructing solicitors, Stephenson’s solicitors. The hearing took place in private and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 19 December 2025. It was alleged that Mr Balfour was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at St Edmund’s School as Director of Sports: 1. He drove a minibus with around 13 pupils under his care and/or used his phone to send one or more messages whilst the vehicle was in motion on or around 21 November 2023. 2. His conduct at 1 above risked pupil safety as he was: a. driving with reduced attention; b. emotionally unfit to drive. Mr Balfour admitted the facts of allegations 1 and 2(a). He accepted that his behaviour in relation to allegations 1 and 2(a) amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Mr Balfour denied the facts of allegation 2(b). He further denied that his conduct in relation to allegation 2(b) amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and statement of agreed and disputed facts – pages 5 to 8 Section 2: Notice of referral and response – pages 10 to 36 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 38 to 128 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 130 to 181 Section 5: Teacher response – pages 184 to 232 In addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: • character reference from Individual A comprising one page - page 233. 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional document 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 May 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED]; and Witness C – [REDACTED]. Mr Balfour also gave oral evidence and called the following witness: Witness D – [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 Balfour commenced employment at St Edmund’s School (‘the School’) on 1 September 2013. He was promoted to Director of Sports in 2016. On 21 November 2023, concerns were raised about Mr Balfour’s welfare as he had allegedly been engaged in an argument with Witness D, [REDACTED]. Later, on the same day, Mr Balfour drove a minibus of pupils to a football match. Concerns arose regarding a series of WhatsApp messages he allegedly sent. These concerns related to both the content of the WhatsApp messages and their timing, as it was alleged that the messages were sent while he was driving the minibus with pupils under his care. On 27 November 2023, Mr Balfour was suspended by the School. He was invited to a disciplinary meeting which took place on 14 March 2024. He was dismissed and ceased employment at the School on 31 March 2024. The headteacher at the School referred Mr Balfour to the TRA on 10 September 2024. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 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 drove a minibus with around 13 pupils under your care and/or used your phone to send one or more messages whilst the vehicle was in motion on or around 21 November 2023. The panel considered the written statement by Mr Balfour dated 4 March 2026. Mr Balfour admitted this allegation and further admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the evidence available to it. The panel, through looking at the screenshots, considered the timing of the WhatsApp messages Mr Balfour had sent compared with the minibus telematics log, which set out the speed and location of the minibus he was driving. The panel noted Mr Balfour’s representative’s submission that when looking at the speeds of the minibus, the timings between the minibus and the phone that Mr Balfour was using had not been cross referenced with one another and so it was not possible to say that the time which was shown on the minibus log was exactly the same as the time of the messages that were sent as suggested by the time stamps. Notwithstanding this, the panel noted that numerous messages had been sent by Mr Balfour on WhatsApp while he was driving the minibus. The timing of the messages when viewed alongside the log, demonstrated a consistent overlap between periods of active driving and the sending of messages, including one message which read “I’m driving”. The panel considered the records of the disciplinary investigation meetings of 6 December 2023 and 24 January 2024 and Mr Balfour’s written statement and oral evidence in which he had described how he had dictated WhatsApp messages whilst driving. After examining the documents before the panel and the admissions by Mr Balfour in his oral and written evidence and in the unsigned statement of agreed and disputed facts, the panel was satisfied that the TRA had proved that Mr Balfour drove a minibus with around 13 pupils under his care and used his phone to send one or more messages whilst the vehicle was in motion on or around 21 November 2023. The panel found allegation 1 proven. 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE 2. Your conduct at 1 above risked pupil safety as you were: a. driving with reduced attention; The panel considered the records of the disciplinary investigation meetings of 6 December 2023 and 24 January 2024 and Mr Balfour’s written statement and oral evidence, in which Mr Balfour had described how he had dictated WhatsApp messages whilst driving, and the unsigned statement of agreed and disputed facts. The panel considered the written statement of Individual B who was driving the school minibus behind Mr Balfour’s vehicle. Whilst noting it was hearsay, the panel noted that the evidence was unchallenged and therefore placed significant weight on it. The panel noted that Individual B’s evidence related to the nature of Mr Balfour’s driving on the date in question. Individual B stated that in his view, “there was nothing in observing his driving that caused me any concern”. The panel considered the written statement and oral evidence of Mr Balfour, who stated that whilst he touched the screen of his mobile phone whilst driving, he did not pick up his mobile phone at any point. In his written statement and oral evidence, Mr Balfour submitted that this was akin to using a satellite navigation system (“SatNav”) or radio. The panel noted the minibus was not provided with a fixture to enable the phone to be used as a SatNav. The phone was therefore customarily placed in a drinks cup holder on the righthand side of the steering wheel. The panel considered that this was unsatisfactory. During Mr Balfour’s oral evidence, he described how he would need to take his hand off the steering wheel to touch the small microphone icon on the phone and make a refined movement to hit that icon correctly. This would involve him taking his focus entirely away from the road. The panel noted that when replying to the messages in the round, Mr Balfour had needed to look at and touch the screen of his mobile phone many times. The panel noted Mr Balfour’s oral evidence that he was driving carefully in convoy and in the inside lane. The logs showed speeds of up to 62 miles per hour. Mr Balfour, in his oral evidence, stated that he was on the A3 for a long period of time. These were fast speeds at which to drive while in charge of a vehicle with children under his care whilst at the same time sending message