Mr Stuart Street

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 Street

Teacher reference number: 1852260

Teacher's date of birth: 18 July 1996

Location teacher worked: Mansfield, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 13 August 2025

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 Stuart Street formerly employed in Mansfield, East Midlands.

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 Stuart Street: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education August 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Stuart Street Teacher ref number: 1852260 Teacher date of birth: 18 July 1996 TRA reference: 20503 Date of determination: 13 August 2025 Former employer: Queen Elizabeth's Academy, Mansfield Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 13 August 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Stuart Street. The panel members were Miss Louisa Munton (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Paul Millett (lay panellist) and Mrs Pamela Thompson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. 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 Street that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Street provided a signed statement of agreed facts in which he admitted the allegation and admitted it would amount to a conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer from the TRA, Mr Street or a representative on his behalf. 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. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 29 April 2025. It was alleged that Mr Street was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that he was convicted on 5 December 2022 at Nottingham Crown Court of: 1. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978 2. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978 3. Possessing prohibited images of children contrary to s.62(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 4. Distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978 5. Distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978 6. Possession of extreme pornographic images contrary to s.63(1)(7)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section A: Pleadings – pages 2 to 6 Section B: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 7 to 63 Section C: Teacher documents – pages 64 to 67 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. 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Street and the TRA’s legal representatives on 11 February 2025. 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 Street was employed by Queen Elizabeth Academy (part of Diverse Academies Trust) (the “School”) from December 2019 as a PE teacher. On 12 October 2021, the police arrested Mr Street on his arrival at the School, having received information which suggested that Mr Street may have been involved in the distribution of an indecent image of a child via a social media application. Following forensic searches made on electronic devices owned by Mr Street, police found evidence of a number of indecent and extreme images on his mobile phone. These included: • A video of a girl, assessed by police to be between 10 to 12 years old, being sexually penetrated by an adult male. • Drawings of girls aged between 8 to 10 years old engaged with in sexual activity with an adult male, one of which included a rope around the girl’s neck. • An image of an adult male cutting his own genitals. • An image of a child known to Mr Street, which was originally innocent in nature, which had been manipulated to appear sexual. None of the images found by the police were of pupils at schools where Mr Street had taught. Also found was evidence that indecent images had been shared from Mr Street’s phone using various messaging applications. There were conversations where the user profile on Mr Street’s phone had purported to be a young girl and asked the recipient to further share indecent images which had been sent from that phone. There was also a conversation in which the user profile on Mr Street’s phone had asked the recipient what it was like to have sex with a child. In an interview with the police, Mr Street denied any involvement with the material found on his phone. 6 As a result of being informed of the police investigation, the School suspended Mr Street and made a referral to the TRA. Mr Street was charged by the police on 12 January 2022 with a number of offences relating to indecent and extreme images. Mr Street initially pleaded not guilty to the offences at the Crown Court having said his phone had been hacked. The matter was listed for a trial to take place in December 2022. In October that year, Mr Street indicated to the court that he would change his pleas to guilty. On 20 April 2023, a sentencing hearing took place at Nottingham Crown Court. Mr Street was sentenced to 17 months immediate custody. As a result of the sentence, Mr Street was made subject to notification requirements under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (commonly referred to being added to the sex offenders register). The court also ordered that Mr Street be subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order which had a number of conditions relating to restrictions on Mr Street’s use of the internet and electronic devices. 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: You have been convicted of a relevant offence in that you were convicted on 5 December 2022 at Nottingham Crown Court of: 1. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978 2. Making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978 3. Possessing prohibited images of children contrary to s.62(1) of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 4. Distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 19785. 5. Distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978 6. Possession of extreme pornographic images contrary to s.63(1)(7)(b) of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 7 Before the panel was a copy of a certificate of conviction from Nottingham Crown Court and signed by an officer of the court. The certificate set out Mr Street’s personal details and that he was convicted following guilty pleas being entered on 5 December 2022. It also set out the sentence and ancillary orders made by the court. The panel took into account the document known as Teacher Misconduct: The Prohibition of Teachers, which is further referred to as “the Advice”. The Advice sets out (at paragraph 15): “[T]he panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply.” The panel saw no reason to depart from the advice and did not consider there were any exceptional circumstances present. Therefore in light of the certificate, the panel found the factual elements of this allegation proved. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the factual element of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts found proved amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had further regard to the Advice. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Street, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Street 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 o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • 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 Street’s actions were relevant to working with children, which was plain from the offence type itself. 8 The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Street’s behaviour in committing the offence 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 Street’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 “any indecent photograph or image or pseudo photograph or image of a child, or permitting any such activity, including one-off incidents”, which suggested this was a relevant offence. In considering these factors, the panel considered that this was a conviction for a relevant offence. Therefore the panel found these allegations proven. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely: • the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Street, which involved viewing and distributing images of child abuse, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the public. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Street were not treated with the utmost 9 seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Street was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Street. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • the commission of a serious criminal offence, including those that resulted in a conviction or caution, paying particular attention to offences that are ‘relevant matters’ for the purposes of the Police Act 1997 and criminal record disclosures; • misconduct seriously affecting the… safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing, or publishing any indecent photograph or image, or indecent pseudo photograph or image, of a child, or permitting such activity, including one-off incidents; Even though the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The panel considered the list of factors at paragraph 43 of the Advice. The panel considered that none of those listed factors applied. Mr Street’s actions were deliberate. He was not acting under duress and there was no evidence of Mr Street’s contribution to the profession before the panel. The panel noted that Mr Street did not have any previous regulatory findings and that he had engaged with the regulatory process for this case. The panel also noted that Mr Street ultimately pleaded guilty to the offences. The panel took into account the court transcript from the sentencing hearing which suggested there was some evidence of a developing insight on the part of Mr Street. For example, that Mr Street had engaged with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and had been open with others about the nature of his offending and showed some understanding of the harm caused. This however was to be balanced with the late nature of his acceptance of the offences and the continued denial of any sexual gratification in his 10 actions, which the court was quick to reject. Furthermore, the Probation Service had assessed Mr Street as being of moderate risk of further online offending. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Street of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Street. The inherent seriousness of such offending and its potential to damage confidence in the profession was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than two years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. One of these include “any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, including one off incidents”. The panel saw no reason to depart from the Advice and therefore the panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Stuart Street should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Street is 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 o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others • 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 findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher being convicted of making, possessing and distributing illegal and indecent images of children. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of a relevant conviction, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Street, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel makes this observation: 12 “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Street, which involved viewing and distributing images of child abuse, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the public.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel took into account the court transcript from the sentencing hearing which suggested there was some evidence of a developing insight on the part of Mr Street. For example, that Mr Street had engaged with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation and had been open with others about the nature of his offending and showed some understanding of the harm caused. This however was to be balanced with the late nature of his acceptance of the offences and the continued denial of any sexual gratification in his actions, which the court was quick to reject. Furthermore, the Probation Service had assessed Mr Street as being of moderate risk of further online offending.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Street has developed full insight into and remorse for his actions means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel makes the following observation: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Street were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Street was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher receiving a conviction for possessing indecent images of children as well as extreme pornographic images in this case and the very negative impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” 13 I have considered whether the publication of a finding of a relevant conviction, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Street himself. The panel records the following: “Mr Street’s actions were deliberate. He was not acting under duress and there was no evidence of Mr Street’s contribution to the profession before the panel.” It goes on to note that: “The panel noted that Mr Street did not have any previous regulatory findings and that he had engaged with the regulatory process for this case. The panel also noted that Mr Street ultimately pleaded guilty to the offences.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Street from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the very serious nature of the misconduct found, which resulted in a term of imprisonment, the likely injury to the standing of the profession done by Mr Street’s actions and the risk of to the future wellbeing of pupils. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Street has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding remarks: “The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. One of these include “any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child, including one off incidents”. The panel saw no reason to depart from the Advice and therefore the panel decided that the findings indicated a 14 situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate response to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the very serious nature of the misconduct found, which in my judgment constitutes behaviour incompatible with working as a teacher, the risk of repetition and the likely damage done to the standing of the profession. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Stuart Street is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Street shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Street has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 20 August 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.