Ms Georgia Lowe

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: Ms Georgia Lowe

Teacher reference number: 4064733

Teacher's date of birth: 28 May 1998

Location teacher worked: Hednesford, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 9 July 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

Ms Georgia Lowe, formerly employed in Hednesford, West 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.

Georgia Lowe: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education July 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Ms Georgia Lowe Teacher ref number: 4064733 Teacher date of birth: 28 May 1998 TRA reference: 20524 Date of determination: 9 July 2025 Former employer: Kingsmead School, Staffordshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 9 July 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Ms Georgia Lowe. The panel members were Mr Brendan Stones, (Teacher Panellist – in the Chair), Ms Charlotte Kelly, (Lay Panellist) and Mrs Erin Sudds, (Teacher Panellist). The Legal Adviser to the panel was Mr Jonathan White of Blake Morgan LLP solicitors. The Presenting Officer for the TRA was Mr Howard Tobias of Capsticks LLP solicitors. Ms Lowe was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of proceedings dated 14 April 2025. It was alleged that Ms Lowe was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: On 23 February 2024, at Stafford Crown Court she was convicted of “engage in sexual communication with a child”. In the absence of and non-response from the teacher, the allegations were not admitted. 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 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 6 to 21 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 22 to 181 The panel had also been provided with a bundle relating to service of the proceedings on Ms Lowe, comprising 47 pages. 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 Procedures. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Ms Lowe was employed by the school as a trainee teacher from 19 July 2021 until 13 November 2021, when she resigned. As part of her role at the school, from September 2021, Ms Lowe was responsible for [REDACTED] Pupil A, who was 15 at the time. Ms Lowe exchanged emails with Pupil A using emojis which included a heart symbol and would often end with an ‘X’, representing a kiss. The emails included the use of nicknames and would continue as late as 10pm. 5 Examples of the communications included Ms Lowe writing to Pupil A using phrases such as “Make me proud”, “try not to miss me too much” and “you’ve already made my day”. Ms Lowe did not report these exchanges to anyone. When initially interviewed by the school, Ms Lowe said that at the time of the email exchange she had not considered it inappropriate. In October 2021 Pupil A’s mother found notes that she believed were from Ms Lowe to Pupil A and reported her concerns to the school. Ms Lowe resigned on 13 November 2021. She was subsequently charged with engaging in sexual communication with a child. Ms Lowe initially pleaded ‘not guilty’, before changing her plead to ‘guilty’ on the day of trial. In his sentencing remarks, the Judge found that Ms Lowe had committed a “gross breach of trust” and that she had “used the environment in which you were working with him [Pupil A] to pursue what was evidently your sexual interest in him”. The Judge noted that Ms Lowe had moved on from passing inappropriate notes to Pupil A to private digital communications with Pupil A including sending images of herself in her underwear to Pupil A. Ms Lowe was sentenced to 14 months imprisonment, suspended for 18 months. Ms Lowe was required to complete up to 20 days of rehabilitation activity and 120 hours of unpaid work. The Judge imposed a restraining order preventing Ms Lowe from contacting Pupil A directly or indirectly for a period of five years. Due to the nature of the offence, Ms Lowe was placed on the Sex Offenders Register for a period of 10 years. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On 23 February 2024, at Stafford Crown Court, you were convicted of ‘engage in sexual communication with a child’. The panel relied on the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the commission of the offence to which that certificate related. 6 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel first considered whether the conduct of Ms Lowe in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Ms Lowe 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • 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 Ms Lowe’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, (albeit that it was suspended), which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers – Advice on factors relating to decisions leading to the prohibition of teachers from the teaching profession (“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 Advice also notes that where a sentence of imprisonment is imposed, including any suspended sentence, it is likely that conviction for that offence will be considered a relevant offence. Ms Lowe was in a position of trust in respect of a child and not only did she fail to adhere to the normal safeguarding duties but she continued her actions even after an investigation had commenced. This demonstrated that Ms Lowe’s conduct was entirely intentional. This went far beyond an inadvertent overstepping of professional boundaries. The panel noted that the Judge had found it necessary to impose a restraining order for five years and found that this reflected the gravity and seriousness of the offending. The panel noted the following sections of the Judge’s sentencing remarks: 7 “Throughout the period that you were [REDACTED] him, he was a child. You were an adult. You used the environment in which you were working with him to pursue what was evidently your sexual interest in him. From the very beginning of the [REDACTED] you sent him messages in a manner which at the time were clearly not appropriate for a teacher/student relationship. Even before the messages turned overtly sexual, you were communicating with him in a way that clearly was not acceptable. You moved on to the passing of inappropriate notes to him, and ultimately, by the end of the period that we are concerned with, matters escalated to private digital communications between you and him, including you sending him images of yourself in your underwear.” “There were sexual images sent, and there was clearly an abuse of trust here, and that ups the culpability and the harm to 1A. It means I have to start looking at a starting point of eighteen months in a range of nine months to two years.” The panel took into account the mitigating factors identified by the Judge but did not consider they were such as to depart from the guidance in the Advice that this was a relevant offence. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. 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, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. 8 In the light of the panel’s findings against Ms Lowe, which involved a conviction for a serious criminal offence of engaging in sexual activity with a child, there was a strong public interest consideration in in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, having regard to the fact that Ms Lowe was responsible for [REDACTED] Pupil A at the time of the offending. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Ms Lowe 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 Ms Lowe was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. Ms Lowe had joined the school in July 2021, with term commencing in September 2021. She immediately committed a “gross breach of trust” in the words of the Judge. The Judge noted that the inappropriate messages were sent “From the very beginning of the [REDACTED]”. There was no evidence of any positive contribution made to the teaching profession in Ms Lowe’s very short career and therefore no public interest in retaining her in the profession since her behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and she abused her position of trust. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit a position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. 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 Ms Lowe. 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; 9 • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils); • an abuse of any trust, knowledge, or influence gained through their professional position in order to advance a romantic or sexual relationship with a pupil or former pupil; • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE); • violation of the rights of pupils; Even though some of 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 noted the mitigating factors identified by the Judge, including Ms Lowe’s good character and remorse and the low risk of re-offending. The panel also noted Ms Lowe’s late insight, reflected in her letter to the Judge presented at the sentencing hearing, though not in the pre-sentence report. In that letter, Ms Lowe apologised to Pupil A. Ms Lowe’s actions had been deliberate. Even after Ms Lowe had been suspended by the school, she contacted Pupil A again, including sending images of herself. There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Lowe was acting under duress. The Judge addressed this in his sentencing remarks as follows: “The concerning aspect of your case is that after matters came to light, by his mother having found out what was going on, you were spoken to, and yet you still had another face-to-face meeting with him at school, and ultimately, when the investigation was launched, and you were suspended from work, you contacted him again, and that included the sending of the images of yourself to him. That was a warning shot across your bows, the investigation at school, and the suspension, but you did not bring your pursuit of him to an end at that point in time.” 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. 10 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 Ms Lowe 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 Ms Lowe. The serious nature of the offence committed, the sentence imposed and the Judge’s sentencing remarks were a significant factor in forming that opinion. The panel additionally considered that allowing Ms Lowe to remain in the profession when the Judge had deemed it necessary to impose a restraining order to prevent contact with Pupil A for five years would be contrary to the public interest. 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 2 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. These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons; • any sexual misconduct involving a child; The panel decided, having regard to the factors already identified, 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. 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. 11 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 Ms Georgia Lowe should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Ms Lowe 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 treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Ms Lowe involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’. The panel finds that the conduct of Ms Lowe fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher being convicted of engaging in communications of a sexual nature with a child resulting in a sentence of imprisonment (suspended). 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 12 have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Ms Lowe, 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 has records the following: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Ms Lowe, which involved a conviction for a serious criminal offence of engaging in sexual activity with a child, there was a strong public interest consideration in in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, having regard to the fact that Ms Lowe was responsible for [REDACTED] Pupil A at the time of the offending. 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 noted the mitigating factors identified by the Judge, including Ms Lowe’s good character and remorse and the low risk of re-offending. The panel also noted Ms Lowe’s late insight, reflected in her letter to the Judge presented at the sentencing hearing, though not in the pre-sentence report. In that letter, Ms Lowe apologised to Pupil A.” The panel goes on to note the following: “Ms Lowe’s actions had been deliberate. Even after Ms Lowe had been suspended by the school, she contacted Pupil A again, including sending images of herself. There was no evidence to suggest that Ms Lowe was acting under duress. The Judge addressed this in his sentencing remarks as follows: “The concerning aspect of your case is that after matters came to light, by his mother having found out what was going on, you were spoken to, and yet you still had another face-to-face meeting with him at school, and ultimately, when the investigation was launched, and you were suspended from work, you contacted him again, and that included the sending of the images of yourself to him. That was a warning shot across your bows, the investigation at school, and the suspension, but you did not bring your pursuit of him to an end at that point in time.” In my judgement, and noting these comments, the lack of evidence presented to the panel beyond the Judge’s remarks that Ms Lowe has developed full insight into and remorse for her behaviour, means that there remains 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. 13 I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel observes that: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Ms Lowe were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher engaging in sexually motivated behaviour towards a pupil in this case and the 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.” 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 Ms Lowe herself. The panel makes no reference to having had the benefit of evidence of her having made any positive contribution whatsoever as an educator. A prohibition order would prevent Ms Lowe 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 by the panel, which involved a teacher being convicted of engaging in sexual communications with a child. I have also placed weight on the lack of evidence that Ms Lowe has taken practical steps to avoid repetition. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Ms Lowe 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 comments: 14 “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. These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons; • any sexual misconduct involving a child; The panel decided, having regard to the factors already identified, 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.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period 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, and the lack of compelling evidence that Ms Lowe has attained such insight as would make the risk of repetition tolerable. 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 Ms Lowe 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 allegation found proved against her, I have decided that Ms Lowe shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of her eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Ms Lowe has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date she is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 14 July 2025 15 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.