Reverend Dr David Campbell

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: Reverend Dr David Campbell

Location teacher worked: Edinburgh, Scotland

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 to 6 March 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 Reverend Dr David Campbell formerly employed in Edinburgh, Scotland.

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.

Reverend Dr David Campbell: 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 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision Teacher: Dr David Campbell TRA reference: 19503 Date of determination: 2 to 6 March 2026 Former employer: Fettes College, Edinburgh Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 to 6 March 2026, by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Reverend Dr David Campbell The panel members were Ms Susan Ridge (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Rebecca Beaty (lay panellist) and Ms Lucy Childs (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jermel Anderson of Blake Morgan solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alexander Barnfield of Capsticks solicitors. Reverend Dr David Campbell was present and was represented by Ms Georgina Pein, Counsel, of One Crown Office Row, as instructed by Ms Sarah-Jane Varley of Richard Nelson LLP. The hearing took place in public, save for the evidence of Pupil A which took place in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 9 January 2026. It was alleged that Reverend Dr David Campbell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that, while employed as a teacher at Fettes College Edinburgh (“Fettes College”): 1. Between 16 February 2011 and June 2011, he communicated with Pupil A through Facebook. 2. On 31 March 2011, he: a. gave his mobile telephone number to Pupil A; b. invited Pupil A to contact him by use of his mobile telephone number. 3. Between on or around January 2011 to November 2011, he encouraged Pupil A to pursue and/or enter into and/or maintain a relationship with Person B. 4. Between on or around January 2011 to November 2011, he sent a message and/or made comments to Pupil A about her having a sexual relationship with Person B. 5. Between on or around February 2011 to November 2011, he met with Pupil A at his home on one or more occasions. 6. Between on or around April 2011 to June 2011, he took Pupil A to a restaurant for dinner on one or more occasions; 7. Between on or around January 2011 to July 2011, he failed to report in a timely manner and/or at all that Pupil A and Person B were having an inappropriate relationship. 8. On or around 4 July 2011, he directed Pupil A to provide incorrect information to Police Scotland in the course of a police investigation. 9. His conduct at particular 7 and/or 8 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity Dr Campbell made admissions to Allegation 1, Allegation 2a, Allegation 2b, Allegation 4, Allegation 5, Allegation 6 and Allegation 7. He denied Allegation 3, Allegation 8 and Allegation 9. Dr Campbell made no admission with regard to the question of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that 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, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of proceedings– pages 6 to 40 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 41 to 172 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages 173 to 195 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, and the decision of the Case Management Hearing which took place on 14 January 2026, 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, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Pupil A, former Pupil at The College Witness C, [REDACTED] Dr Campbell also gave oral evidence before the panel. In addition, his representative called the following witness: Witness D, [REDACTED] 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. Dr Campbell began his employment as Chaplain at the College in September 2007. Dr Campbell was Pupil A’s tutor from September 2010 until July 2011. During the same year, Pupil A developed a friendship or relationship with Person B, a teacher at the College. In February 2011, a meeting was convened by the College whereby Person B was suspended for one day and directed to no longer have contact with Pupil A. In July 2011 Dr Campbell disclosed the relationship between Pupil A and Person B to the College. On 4 July 2011, Pupil A spoke with police officers from Police Scotland about her relationship with Person B within the chaplain’s house of the College. On 1 September 2011, he assumed position as Assistant to a Housemistress at the College. In 2012, he left the College. He secured a position at a school in England on 1 September 2017. On 5 September 2020 a referral was sent to the TRA by Pupil A, whilst Dr Campbell was employed by the other school. The TRA made the determination that there was a case to answer in respect of the case on 8 April 2024. [REDACTED] Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found Allegation 1, Allegation 2a, Allegation 2b, Allegation 3, Allegation 4, Allegation 5, Allegation 6 and Allegation 7 and Allegation 9 in regard to the question of a lack of integrity proved. 7 The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/ or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as a teacher at Fettes College Edinburgh (“Fettes College”): 1. Between 16 February 2011 and June 2011, you communicated with Pupil A through Facebook. Dr Campbell made a full admission to this allegation. In addition, the panel was satisfied that it had seen screenshots of conversations between Pupil A and Dr Campbell which took place over Facebook. The panel accordingly found Allegation 1 proved. 2. On 31 March 2011, you: a. gave your mobile telephone number to Pupil A; b. invited Pupil A to contact you by use of your mobile telephone number. Dr Campbell made a full admission to both Allegation 2a and Allegation 2b, confirming that he had given his phone number to Pupil A via Facebook via a message that the panel had sight of, and that they had communicated via text message following this. The panel additionally noted that it had seen screenshots, demonstrating that there had been several exchanges via text between Dr Campbell and Pupil A, further supporting the allegation. The panel accordingly found Allegation 2a and Allegation 2b proved. 3. Between on or around January 2011 to November 2011, you encouraged Pupil A to pursue and/or enter into and/or maintain a relationship with Person B. When considering this allegation, the panel considered that to find it proved, the identification of encouragement by Dr Campbell was necessary. It considered a finding of encouragement in this context would require a finding that he had supported, or provided a positive endorsement of the behaviour. The panel also had due regard for the relationship between Pupil A and Person B. It considered that within the meaning of this allegation, “relationship” referred to the dynamic that existed between Pupil A and Person B and did not need to specifically engage with whether the relationship had evolved to one which was sexual in nature. The 8 panel noted that in February 2011 the school suspended Person B from work for a day. They had given a direction to him and to Pupil A that they were not to have further contact, due to concerns that had been raised about their interactions. The panel first explored the subject of whether Dr Campbell had encouraged Pupil A to pursue or enter into a relationship with Person B. The panel considered that the evidence as provided was indicative of the relationship existing in some form, prior to Dr Campbell’s knowledge. Notably, whilst it may have been plausible, that Dr Campbell had engaged with Pupil A in relation to the subject prior to the messages that had been made available, it considered that a finding in this regard would not be commensurate with the evidence as presented. It was noted by the panel that Pupil A’s evidence was not that Dr Campbell had advised her to enter the relationship, and it appeared that Dr Campbell’s knowledge of the relationship came after the relationship had begun. It accordingly determined that it was not satisfied that Dr Campbell had encouraged Pupil A to enter into a relationship with Person B. The panel then considered the question as to whether Dr Campbell had encouraged Pupil A to maintain her relationship with Person B. The panel noted that it had sight of an exchange of messages between Dr Campbell and Pupil A dated 16 February 2011 whereby the “no contact” position with regard to Pupil A and Person B was disclosed, demonstrating that Dr Campbell had knowledge of the school’s position. It noted that in response to Pupil A’s disclosure on this date that in spite of the order, Pupil A and Person B were “both being careful”, Dr Campbell had stated “Glad you are being careful…Mum’s the word this end”. The panel considered that this response was indicative of a tacit endorsement of the behaviour by Dr Campbell; notably, he had been presented with suggestion that Pupil A and Person B were continuing to communicate and had not challenged this behaviour, or reported it. The panel noted that Pupil A’s account was that Dr Campbell had said to her in February 2011 “that he had never seen two people with such a connection”, when discussing Pupil A and Person B, something which she had considered was indicative of supporting the relationship. Dr Campbell gave evidence to the effect that he could not recall this incident, but stated that if he had made the remark it was “foolish” and that he had been a “jovial” and “empathetic” figure. Whilst the panel considered that Pupil A’s account was compelling, the panel did not consider that it could make a positive finding with regard to whether this exact language was used during the incident, taking into account the passage of time, and Dr Campbell’s equivocation. Regardless, it considered his response to the remark to be relevant to the inferences it could draw regarding his view of the behaviour; it noted that when giving evidence in relation to this incident he stated that the age difference between Pupil A and Person B was not a concern to him and that “you see people together of all ages”. 9 The panel noted that through his evidence, Dr Campbell had said that he would not act contrary to the guidance of [REDACTED], giving words to the effect of “he ruled the school with an fist of iron”. The panel however considered this to be inconsistent with the reality that it had seen screenshots, showing that Dr Campbell had known that behaviour contrary to a direction of the College was ongoing, and that no corrective action had been taken. The panel additionally had particular regard for to messages that it had seen dated 3 April 2011. Within the message sent by Dr Campbell, which appeared to follow a meal that he had with Pupil A, he characterised the dynamic between Pupil A and Person B as a “a (currently) mutually satisfying and (currently) happy situation”. The panel considered that this language, against a context of the circumstances whereby Dr Campbell did not appear to seek to dissuade this ongoing situation, amounted to encouragement. Additionally, it determined that it could draw the inference, due to all of the attitudinal observations as above, that Dr Campbell’s view towards the relationship was such that he had provided an indication to Pupil A, that her having a relationship with a teacher who was approximately 22 years older than her, was permissible, and could be maintained. The panel accordingly determined that it was more likely than not that Dr Campbell had encouraged the maintenance of a relationship between Pupil A and Person B and therefore it found Allegation 3 proven. 4. Between on or around January 2011 to November 2011, you sent a message and/or made comments to Pupil A about her having a sexual relationship with Person B. Allegation 4 was admitted by Dr Campbell. The panel however sought to explore the meaning of the allegation and ensure that it was accordingly satisfied. It noted that the allegation made reference to Pupil A “having a sexual relationship with Person B” and considered that this could be interpreted as referring to an active sexual relationship. It noted that it saw no evidence that there was an active sexual relationship, and that the evidence of both Dr Campbell and Witness C was that they had no knowledge of any sexual relationship, but it determined that the allegation as construed more properly could include discussions pertaining to the prospect of a sexual relationship. The panel considered that it had sight of a message dated 3 April 2011, whereby Dr Campbell stated “Neither you nor I know for certain what might have taken place had things been taken any further in your friendship with Person B but I am pretty convinced that a more involved and necessarily complex sexual relationship is not, from what you said, a good/desirable thing for you nor indeed for him in the short/medium term. Yes, it might have him happy (and why wouldn’t it?) while it was going on but you wouldn’t have been happy and especially as you said you don’t fancy him in that way”. The panel formed the view that this message could be construed as amounting to a message about 10 Pupil A having a prospective sexual relationship with Person B, and also implied that wider conversations had also taken place on the subject. The panel considered that the above messages were contextually supportive of Pupil A’s evidence whereby she stated that during the meal between Pupil A and Dr Campbell that took place in April 2011, he had said to her “you must have had sex with him by now” in regard to Person B. It was noted by the panel that Dr Campbell did not wholly dispute this, and had advised that he had sought to establish the extent of the relationship between Pupil A and Person B’s, as he felt she had been ambiguous in regards to the nature of it. The panel accordingly found Allegation 4 proved. 5. Between on or around February 2011 to November 2011, you met with Pupil A at your home on one or more occasions. Allegation 5 was admitted in full by Dr Campbell. Additionally, the panel noted that it heard evidence in relation to this allegation from both Dr Campbell and Witness C to the effect that throughout his employment at the College, Dr Campbell’s home was the Chaplain’s house, and that he held weekly events on Wednesdays where pupils could attend which were known as “Chaplain’s at Home” events. Pupil A additionally gave evidence that she had been to the home and Dr Campbell accepted this through his evidence, though caveated it by stating that it was done “only in the company of other pupils”. The panel noted that whilst there was a degree of ambiguity regarding whether Pupil A had attended Dr Campbell’s home alone or in the presence of other pupils, and whilst this was not material to this allegation, it saw evidence which suggested that Pupil A had attended alone. The panel noted that It had sight of a message stating “why don’t you come to my house for a coffee and a chat” from Dr Campbell to Pupil A dated 20 February 2011. This particular message was considered significant by the panel, given the reality that it took place on a Friday and therefore, would likely not have formed part of the “Chaplain’s at Home” meetings. Additionally, messages from Dr Campbell such as one stating “defo come tonight” dated 1 April 2021, were further indication that Pupil A attended the home of Dr Campbell and more likely than not did so on her own. The panel accordingly found Allegation 5 proved. 11 6. Between on or around April 2011 to June 2011, you took Pupil A to a restaurant for dinner on one or more occasions; The panel noted that Dr Campbell had made an admission to this allegation. Pupil A and Dr Campbell had both gave evidence that they had dined together at restaurants in the same area as the College. The panel also considered that it had sight of messages date 20 June 2011, with Dr Campbell confirming booking confirmation details with Pupil A and noted that in response she mentioned she “liked [the restaurant] the last time”, further implying that this had occurred on multiple occasions. The panel accordingly found Allegation 6 proved. 7. Between on or around January 2011 to July 2011, you failed to report in a timely manner and/or at all that Pupil A and Person B were having an inappropriate relationship. The panel took into consideration that Dr Campbell had admitted the allegation and that he had accepted that he had not acted in a timely manner in relation to his reporting of the relationship. Through his oral evidence, Dr Campbell advised that he “should have said something in April 2011”. The panel considered that in the circumstances, Dr Campbell was aware of the ongoing relationship as early as February 2011 and accordingly considered that he ought to have reported it then. As set out above in relation to Allegation 3, Dr Campbell’s remark that “mum’s the word” in respect of the relationship was indicative of the reality that he knew that the relationship was inappropriate, and that he had failed to act accordingly. The panel was satisfied that there was a duty upon Dr Campbell to report the relationship. It was one whereby he was aware that both parties had been directed by the College not to have contact with each other, and also that Person B had previously been suspended from work for one day as a result of the relationship. The panel considered that there would be a duty incumbent upon a chaplain, tutor, or any other individual working in a teaching capacity to make a prompt and proper disclosure in such a situation. Additionally it was satisfied as to the inappropriateness of the relationship, given the concern raised and action taken by the College. The panel therefore determined that it was more likely than not that Dr Campbell had failed to report an inappropriate relationship in a timely manner and accordingly found Allegation 7 proved. 12 8. On or around 4 July 2011, you directed Pupil A to provide incorrect information to Police Scotland in the course of a police investigation. The panel noted that Pupil A’s account was that she spoke to police regarding her relationship with Person B on 4 July 2011 within the Chaplain’s house at the College. The location of this conversation was not disputed by Dr Campbell who advised through his evidence that the College had asked for the police interaction to take place there. Pupil A asserted that whilst the police were present, Dr Campbell invited her to the kitchen for a private discussion, and once they were out of the earshot of the police, he advised her that Person B would “go to prison if you say there anything physical between the two of you”, and that she needed to advise that the relationship was emotional/spiritual. Dr Campbell denied giving any direction that Pupil A should provide incorrect information. He advanced that Witness C had instructed him to tell Pupil A of the potential consequences of criminal action for Person B and that he was simply carrying out this instruction. He stated that he had “minimal recollection” but simply wanted to “make her aware of the consequences” The panel noted that at the relevant time, the relationship between Pupil A and Person B seemed somewhat unclear, through her evidence, Pupil A stated that it “didn’t progress significantly until after she’d left school”, though some mention of physical contact had been made, it was not clear as to whether this had passed a definitional threshold that would mean that what Pupil A relayed to the police was incorrect. It was also noted that the ability to comment on this was further hindered by the absence of any record of the police interview. The panel also considered that whilst Dr Campbell’s words were likely to have been influential upon Pupil A, it did not consider that what was said upon the account of Pupil A would amount to a direction, even if the implication was suggestive of serious consequences for Person B. Based on all of the evidence before it, the panel was unable to determine to the standard required, whether the information provided by Pupil A to the police was correct or incorrect, and the degree to which, if any, it had been influenced by Dr Campbell. . The panel accordingly found Allegation 8 not proved. 9. Your conduct at particular 7 and/or 8 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. The panel considered the question of dishonesty and a lack of integrity, with sole regard to Allegation 7, having found Allegation 8 not proved. 13 When first considering the question of dishonesty, the panel was careful to apply the test as found within the case of Ivey v Genting Casinos [2017] UKSC 67 at paragraph 74: 'When dishonesty is in question the fact-finding tribunal must first ascertain (subjectively) the actual state of the individual's knowledge or belief as to the facts. The reasonableness or otherwise of the belief is a matter of evidence (often in practice determinative) going to whether he held the belief, but it is not an additional requirement that his belief must be reasonable; the question is whether it is genuinely held. When once his actual state of mind as to knowledge or belief as to facts is established, the question whether his conduct was honest or dishonest is to be determined by the fact-finder by applying the (objective) standards of ordinary decent people. There is no requirement that the defendant must appreciate that what he has done is, by those standards, dishonest.' The panel first considered Dr Campbell’s state of mind as to his lack of timely reporting of the relationship. It considered that there were multiple occasions whereby he could have reported the incident prior to July 2011, and that it appeared that he only made a disclosure, once another adult, Pupil A’s mother, had become involved. It noted that throughout his evidence, Dr Campbell had made reference to Pupil A’s agency. It was apparent that he appeared to operate under the belief that there was no inherent problem with the relationship with Pupil A and Person B and had made multiple comments regarding her intellectual capabilities. The panel noted that his belief with regard to the relationship and also, the attributes of Pupil A, meant that he did not properly appreciate the vulnerability that she faced in the circumstances. It accordingly considered that his belief was not one whereby he he\had sought to deceive through his inaction. The panel accordingly determined that Dr Campbell genuinely did not believe that there was an issue with his non-reporting of the relationship. It was apparent that the engagement of Pupil A’s mother appears to have caused him to have a proper realisation of the seriousness of the matter. The panel considered in the circumstances, that ordinary decent people would not consider that a dual capacity tutor and chaplain who had failed to report a relationship in a prompt manner, which was partially attributable to his lack of recognition of its seriousness, would be considered dishonest. It additionally considered that it could draw the inference that what both Dr Campbell and Witness C had characterised as the “grey area” between his two roles was a contributing factor in relation to his belief. Dr Campbell had given evidence to the effect that he had worked in a pastoral capacity within the church community, prior to becoming a school chaplain, and that at times the principles of solemnity and confidentiality would sometimes conflict with College’s obligations. Although Witness C described safeguarding as being a core part of the College’s ethos, his evidence in relation to the policy in place was somewhat vague. The panel 14 additionally considered that it had not been presented with any safeguarding policy documentation or job specifications, in relation to the framework that Dr Campbell worked within. The panel went on to consider the question of integrity, in doing so it was mindful that Dr Campbell, as with all professionals was not expected to be a paragon of virtue. It however considered that he had effectively encouraged a secret and wholly inappropriate relationship to continue for a prolonged period of time. The panel considered that the delay that continued from 20 June 2011, when Dr Campbell appeared to finally appreciate the seriousness of the matter, and July when he finally reported the matter, amounted to a failing. The panel formed the view that this was indicative of a complete misunderstanding of his responsibilities and duties to safeguard a pupil and clearly fell outside of the ethical expectations of the teaching profession. It was acknowledged that Dr Campbell’s behaviour did not exist within a vacuum and noted that he had not been disciplined by Witness C for his conduct, however it did not consider that this meant that the overall standards expected of him were not applicable in the circumstances. Accordingly the panel found Allegation 9 proved, solely in respect of the question of a lack of integrity. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found Allegation 1, Allegation 2a, Allegation 2b, Allegation 3, Allegation 4, Allegation 5, Allegation 6 and Allegation 7 and Allegation 9 in regard to the question of a lack of integrity proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. As the majority of the conduct took place prior to July 2011, the panel was mindful of the fact that this proven conduct occurred at a time when the current Teachers' Standards were not in force. Nonetheless, it concluded that given the failings concerned professional boundaries, a lack of integrity and a failure to report safeguarding concerns in a timely manner could be regarded as serious at any time. The panel also considered whether Dr Campbell’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. 15 The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that none of these offences was relevant. The panel noted that the offence of sexual communication with a child was present, but it was clear that the conduct as found proved at Allegation 4 was not contextually connected to this offence or the behaviour associated with it. The panel considered that the conduct contained within Allegation 1, Allegation 2a and Allegation 2b was similar in nature, insofar as it concerned communication with Pupil via the internet and/or text messages. It noted that in respect of this conduct, no explicit policy had been provided indicating that there was a rule contrary to this behaviour. The panel considered that whilst if this conduct had taken place in the present, it may form an alternative view, in the circumstances of this particular case it was not so serious as to meet the threshold for unacceptable professional conduct. The panel considered that the conduct took place in a time whereby there appeared to be a lack of robust policy concerning online communication with pupils, and where social media use was still relatively unregulated. The panel considered that Allegation 3 was serious in nature; Dr Campbell had encouraged a highly inappropriate relationship and it was noted that at no point did he appear to have sought assistance, or advice from the Senior Management Team at the College. It also considered the fact that by his account he had not spoken to Person B about this, and that this further exacerbated the seriousness of this matter. Dr Campbell had characterised the culture of the College as one of “closeness and community” within his evidence however, it was noted by the panel that his behaviour appeared contrary to this. The panel considered that the discussion of a sexual relationship, whether prospective or otherwise, as set out within Allegation 4, was inappropriate in the circumstances and fell significantly short of the standard expected of Dr Campbell. The panel considered that Allegation 5, as found proved, was inconsequential in nature. It noted that Dr Campbell had suggested that conversations take place within a private location, and that Pupil A most likely attended his home by herself, but it considered that this issue was inseparable from the culture and context of the College insofar as it was apparent that the chaplain was expected to be available at all times. It accordingly considered that this conduct did not meet the threshold for unacceptable professional conduct. Whilst the same cultural environment was relevant to the panel’s considerations in respect of Allegation 6, as those identified in relation to Allegation 5 as above, the panel 16 considered there was a clear distinction to be made. With regard to Allegation 6, Dr Campbell had taken a pupil to dinner at a restaurant on more than one occasion and held private conversations with her about intimate matters. It noted that these meetings were away from College grounds, and involved the consumption of alcohol. The panel considered that these interactions crossed the professional boundaries between pupil and teacher, and were inappropriate in a situation where the pupil was 17, and that Dr Campbell appeared to have treated her as if she were an adult and failed to recognise that he was in a position of trust and responsibility. Accordingly, the panel determined that Dr Campbell fell significantly short of the standard expected of him in relation to this conduct. The panel addressed the conduct found within Allegation 7 and Allegation 9. It again noted the cultural context of the College, and had particular regard to the fact that Witness C had advised that he “didn’t expect to hear” about every situation, it was plausible in the circumstances that there had a been a lack of robust and clear guidance for staff. Nevertheless, the panel considered that the lack of timely reporting on the part of Dr Campbell was inexcusable. Through his conduct, Dr Campbell had failed to act with regard to Pupil A’s wellbeing and to adhere to the direction that had already given by the College about Pupil A and Person B. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Dr Campbell amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession, with regard to Allegation 3, Allegation 4, Allegation 6, Allegation 7 and Allegation 9. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Dr Campbell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Dr Campbell actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Dr Campbell’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Dr Campbell was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that none of these offences were relevant. As with regard to the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct, 17 the panel considered that there were temporal and cultural considerations that would effect the question as to whether any of the conduct had the capacity to bring the profession into disrepute. The panel again considered that with regard to Allegations 1, 2a and 2b, the conduct taking place at a time when the College had a nascent understanding of social media and the potential safeguarding issues that it had, meant that its ability to bring the profession into disrepute was significantly inhibited. It similarly determined, as it had done with regard to the question of unacceptable professional conduct, that Allegation 5 would not meet the requisite threshold, again taking into consideration the context of the College environment. The panel noted however that the other allegations that it had found proved engaged directly with the reputation of the teaching profession. Dr Campbell had encouraged an inappropriate relationship between a pupil and a teacher, had intimate and sensitive discussions with a pupil regarding a sexual relationship, had met the pupil outside of the College environment and dined with her at a restaurant, and had lacked integrity by failing to report the inappropriate relationship in a timely manner. The panel considered that all of this behaviour had the potential to have a direct impact upon the way that the teaching profession is seen by the public. For these reasons, the panel found that Dr Campbell’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct/conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 protection of other members of the public; • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession 18 • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct within the teaching profession; In the light of the panel’s findings against Dr Campbell, which involved a breaching of professional boundaries between him and Pupil A, there was a public interest consideration in relation to all of the above. The panel however felt that this needed to be considered in the context that this conduct occurred 15 years ago, and therefore its relevance to the present public interest was limited. The panel considered that there was a public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the findings relating to Dr Campbell meeting with Pupil A privately and discussing sensitive matters with her. It also considered that this public interest consideration was directly relevant to Dr Campbell’s failure to report the inappropriate relationship in a timely manner. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened in relation to the conduct that it found proved regarding Dr Campbell, given the findings as above that addressed conduct that has the potential to bring the profession into disrepute. The panel was also of the view that a public interest consideration in the declaration and upholding of proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Dr Campbell was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated, though it again noted that the standards of conduct within the profession have developed significantly since the time of the conduct as found proved. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Dr Campbell in the profession. The panel noted that, save for this incident, Dr Campbell had led a long and successful career in teaching. It noted that he had continued working with pupils until 2025, and that he had been provided with multiple positive references. It considered that no doubt had been cast upon his abilities and that he has and is able to make a valuable contribution to the education sector. 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. 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 Dr Campbell. 19 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:  misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils;  abuse of position or trust (particularly involving pupils);  failure to act on evidence that indicated a child’s welfare may have been at risk;  a lack of integrity,  collusion or concealment including: o failure to challenge inappropriate actions, defending inappropriate actions or concealing inappropriate actions; o encouraging others to break rules; 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 that Dr Campbell’s actions were deliberate. It also considered that it saw no evidence that he was acting under duress. The panel was also cognisant of the reality that Dr Campbell was never a qualified teacher, and therefore it was likely that he lacked some of the training and education that would be expected of someone operating in the education profession. The panel also noted that Dr Campbell had a previous good history, having demonstrated high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel was particularly mindful of the fact that Dr Campbell received multiple supportive character references that all painted him in a highly positive light from individuals who had worked with him, and were aware of the allegations in this matter. It had particular regard for Witness D who when asked during his evidence whether he considered that Dr Campbell posed any ongoing risk to pupils stated “absolutely not”. It additionally noted that within his character reference, Witness D stated that “whilst [Dr Campbell] may have got some things wrong, he would have been acting out of the best of intentions. Where his judgment and actions fell below the understandably high standards that we expect and demand today, I can only assume that this was due to a combination of inexperience and naivety”. The panel considered that this characterisation appeared compelling, having regard to its findings above with regard to Dr Campbell’s lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the conduct at the relevant time. 20 When considered the reflections and evidence provided by Dr Campbell, the panel considered that he had shown a high level of insight. It noted that he had been remorseful throughout her evidence, and had been directly apologetic following the evidence of Pupil A, recognising the serious and detrimental impact that the relationship had upon her. It also noted that Dr Campbell had taken significant rehabilitative steps, and that he had completed training to correct his appreciation of safeguarding matters and professional boundaries. The panel considered that the conduct of Dr Campbell could not be separated from the fact that he had continued to work within teaching environments until 2025, and that no further concerns had arisen, with several former colleagues providing strong references in support of his abilities and suitability. It was also considered notable that Dr Campbell’s actions were not called into question at the relevant time and he continued to teach at the College with increased responsibilities. 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, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of upholding proper standards of the profession. 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 sanction. 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 some of the allegations proven and found that some of those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 21 In this case, the panel has also found some of the allegations not proven and/or found that some allegations do not amount to unacceptable professional conduct. I have therefore put those matters entirely from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the findings of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute should be published and that such an action is proportionate and in the public interest. The panel notes that the misconduct found against Reverend Dr David Campbell was largely committed prior to the Teachers’ Standards coming into force and comments as follows: “As the majority of the conduct took place prior to July 2011, the panel was mindful of the fact that this proven conduct occurred at a time when the current Teachers' Standards were not in force. Nonetheless, it concluded that given the failings concerned professional boundaries, a lack of integrity and a failure to report safeguarding concerns in a timely manner could be regarded as serious at any time.” The panel finds that the conduct of Dr Campbell fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher breaching professional boundaries, failing to report a safeguarding risk and acting in a way which lacked integrity. 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Dr Campbell, 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 offers this observation: “The panel considered that there was a public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the findings relating to Dr Campbell meeting with Pupil A privately and discussing sensitive matters with her. It also 22 considered that this public interest consideration was directly relevant to Dr Campbell’s failure to report the inappropriate relationship in a timely manner.” 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: “When considered the reflections and evidence provided by Dr Campbell, the panel considered that he had shown a high level of insight. It noted that he had been remorseful throughout her evidence, and had been directly apologetic following the evidence of Pupil A, recognising the serious and detrimental impact that the relationship had upon her. It also noted that Dr Campbell had taken significant rehabilitative steps, and that he had completed training to correct his appreciation of safeguarding matters and professional boundaries. The panel considered that the conduct of Dr Campbell could not be separated from the fact that he had continued to work within teaching environments until 2025, and that no further concerns had arisen, with several former colleagues providing strong references in support of his abilities and suitability. It was also considered notable that Dr Campbell’s actions were not called into question at the relevant time and he continued to teach at the College with increased responsibilities.” In my judgement, this evidence of Dr Campbell’s insight into and remorse for his behaviour, and particularly that he has both taken significant rehabilitative steps and appears to have avoided any recurrence in the time that has elapsed since these events, means that the risk of the repetition of this behaviour is very limited. I have therefore given this element some 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 comments: “The panel noted however that the other allegations that it had found proved engaged directly with the reputation of the teaching profession. Dr Campbell had encouraged an inappropriate relationship between a pupil and a teacher, had intimate and sensitive discussions with a pupil regarding a sexual relationship, had met the pupil outside of the College environment and dined with her at a restaurant, and had lacked integrity by failing to report the inappropriate relationship in a timely manner. The panel considered that all of this behaviour had the potential to have a direct impact upon the way that the teaching profession is seen by the public.” 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 23 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Dr Campbell himself. The panel provides this observation: “The panel noted that, save for this incident, Dr Campbell had led a long and successful career in teaching. It noted that he had continued working with pupils until 2025, and that he had been provided with multiple positive references. It considered that no doubt had been cast upon his abilities and that he has and is able to make a valuable contribution to the education sector.” The panel goes on to record the following: “The panel also noted that Dr Campbell had a previous good history, having demonstrated high standards in both his personal and professional conduct and having contributed significantly to the education sector. The panel was particularly mindful of the fact that Dr Campbell received multiple supportive character references that all painted him in a highly positive light from individuals who had worked with him, and were aware of the allegations in this matter. It had particular regard for Witness D who when asked during his evidence whether he considered that Dr Campbell posed any ongoing risk to pupils stated “absolutely not”. It additionally noted that within his character reference, Witness D stated that “whilst [Dr Campbell] may have got some things wrong, he would have been acting out of the best of intentions. Where his judgment and actions fell below the understandably high standards that we expect and demand today, I can only assume that this was due to a combination of inexperience and naivety”. The panel considered that this characterisation appeared compelling, having regard to its findings above with regard to Dr Campbell’s lack of appreciation of the seriousness of the conduct at the relevant time.” A prohibition order would prevent Dr Campbell 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 panel’s findings in respect of the insight and remorse demonstrated by Dr Campbell and the significant rehabilitative steps he has taken, the mitigating circumstances that were present in respect of Dr Campbell’s inexperience as a teacher and the environment he was working in, his contribution to 24 education, his unblemished record in the significant period of time since these events occurred, and the development of professional standards in that time. I have also given considerable weight to the panel’s concluding remarks, and particularly its assessment of the relative seriousness of his transgressions: “The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response. Given that the nature and severity of the behaviour were at the less serious end of the possible spectrum and, having considered the mitigating factors that were present, the panel determined that a recommendation for a prohibition order would not be appropriate in this case. The panel considered that the publication of the adverse findings it had made was sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that are not acceptable, and the publication would meet the public interest requirement of upholding proper standards of the profession.” For these reasons, I have concluded that, while the misconduct found in this case was serious, a prohibition order is not proportionate or in the public interest. I consider that the publication of the findings made would be sufficient to send an appropriate message to the teacher as to the standards of behaviour that were not acceptable and that the publication would meet the public interest requirement of declaring proper standards of the profession. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 11 March 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.