Can a failure to disclose fiancé's criminal conviction result in a teaching ban?

Although the teacher had not committed any criminal offence himself, the case raises important points about safeguarding disclosure obligations. We examine the professional conduct proceedings against Mr Ridgway and whether his failure to inform the school resulted in a teaching ban. 

Facts

Mr Ridgway worked at the school from September 2019 until he resigned on 19 February 2024. He initially worked as a photography technician before becoming a photography teacher on 1 September 2023. 

During his employment, he was engaged to ‘person A’. In June 2023, person A was convicted of ten offences of sexual activity with a boy. The court sentenced person A to a term of imprisonment and they were ordered to sign the Sex Offender Register for life. 

In December 2023, a member of the public emailed the school to inform it of person A's conviction. The school suspended Mr Ridgway and began an investigation. 

Following his resignation, the school referred him to the Teaching Regulation Agency ('the TRA'). The TRA alleged that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into dispute because he: 

• failed to tell the school that his fiancé was under police investigation for child sexual offences
• failed to tell the school that his fiancé had been convicted of child sexual offences, sentenced to imprisonment on 6 December 2023 and ordered to sign the Sex Offender Register; and
• acted dishonestly and/or lacked integrity. 

Professional conduct panel 

The panel found that Mr Ridgway had not made any disclosures to the school. The main issue was whether he knew enough about the circumstances to require him to make those disclosures. 

Mr Ridgway maintained that at the time of the police investigation, he was not aware of the detail of the allegations, and the panel could not establish that he knew the allegations specifically related to sexual offences against children. As a result, the panel did not uphold the first allegation. 

However, the panel concluded that Mr Ridgway knew about person A's conviction and sentence by 6 December 2023 and did not tell the school, so the panel found the second allegation proven.

Having upheld this allegation, the panel went on to consider whether Mr Ridgway's actions were dishonest and/or lacked integrity. 

The panel concluded that he had not deliberately tried to mislead the school and did not consider his conduct dishonest. However, the panel found that his actions lacked integrity. 

Did he breach the Teachers' Standards?

The panel then considered whether Mr Ridgway's conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 

It found that he breached the following Teachers' Standards:

• Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school
• Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach

The panel emphasised that Mr Ridgway held a position of trust as both a teacher and an employee. As such, he had a duty to act with integrity and comply with the school's code of conduct. 

Although the panel considered his actions serious, it concluded that they did not fall so far below professional standards as to amount to unacceptable professional conduct. 

Did his actions bring the profession into disrepute?

The panel reached a different conclusion when considering whether the conduct could bring the profession into disrepute. 

It found that the circumstances were serious enough to affect Mr Ridgway's standing as a teacher. Members of the public would expect a teacher to disclose information of this nature to their employer, particularly where they remained in a relationship with someone who had been convicted of serious sexual offences against a child. 

In the panel's view, his behaviour had the potential to damage public confidence in the teaching profession. It therefore found that his actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 

Was he banned from teaching?

The panel decided that a prohibition order would not be appropriate. It considered it unlikely that the same circumstances would arise again. It also found that Mr Ridgway's conduct had not created a direct safeguarding risk to pupils. 

The panel further concluded that he would seek to avoid similar issues in the future and that the risk of repetition was sufficiently low. Although it recognised the seriousness of the conduct, it considered a prohibition order to be disproportionate. 

However, the Secretary of State disagreed. 

The Secretary of State expressed concern about the panel's conclusion that the conduct was unlikely to be repeated simply because it arose from unusual circumstances. In particular, the Secretary of State remained concerned about Mr Ridgway's understanding of his safeguarding responsibilities and the panel's finding that he had shown only limited insight, regret and remorse. 

The Secretary of State concluded that there was still a risk that Mr Ridgway might fail to disclose important information in the future. That risk could affect the wellbeing of pupils. 

In those circumstances, the Secretary of State decided that a prohibition order was necessary to maintain public confidence in the profession. The Secretary of State therefore prohibited Mr Ridgway from teaching indefinitely, with the right to apply for a review after two years. 

Key takeaways for schools and colleges

This case highlights the importance of safeguarding disclosures. It also demonstrates that a teacher can face serious regulatory consequences, including a teaching ban, for failing to disclose safeguarding-related information about a partner. 

You should ensure that staff understand their safeguarding responsibilities and know when they must disclose information that may raise safeguarding concerns. 

Keeping children safe in education makes clear that safeguarding is everyone's responsibility. Training, policies and codes of conduct should clearly set out disclosure expectations, and you should foster a culture in which staff feel able to raise concerns openly and at an early stage. 

Our newsletters 
We publish monthly employment and education newsletters. If you'd like to be added to the mailing list, please let me know.