Anthony Bennett

Introduction

Anthony Bennett is a former teacher and subject lead for physical education barred from teaching for life in October 2023, when the Secretary of State for Education prohibited him from teaching indefinitely after a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel found he had engaged in inappropriate relationships with two former pupils. Bennett had taught at Swan Valley Secondary School in Kent since September 2000. The panel found he sent inappropriate messages and emails to pupils and entered into a romantic and sexual relationship with a 16-year-old former pupil shortly after she left the school. He cannot teach in England again and is not entitled to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Bennett was born on 20 February 1971. Pupil A and Pupil B were already pupils at the school when he arrived, were in the same year group, and the decision records that he had a pastoral connection to them. In September 2020, Pupil A, with Pupil B’s agreement, disclosed the purported relationships to police and the local authority designated officer (LADO); those investigations took no further action, and Pupil A referred the matter to the TRA on 27 April 2021. The decision records his employer at the time of the hearing as East Tilbury Primary School in Essex.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

The TRA alleged five matters: that between around July 2001 and December 2002 Bennett sent inappropriate messages and emails to Pupil A and/or Pupil B; that between 2001 and 2003 he engaged in a romantic and/or sexual relationship with Pupil B, aged 16 at the time, shortly after she left the school; that his behaviour showed elements of building an inappropriate relationship; that he failed to maintain expected standards; and that this conduct was sexually motivated. Bennett denied everything, contending he was not the author of key emails and that the witnesses had conspired against him.

Given the two decades that had passed, the panel placed significant weight on contemporaneous documents. Pupil A exhibited emails sent to her between 16 July and 16 December 2002 from an account whose metadata header identified its owner as Mr A Bennett, some signed off “Love TB”. A digital forensic expert found the emails had originated from a server associated with the school and showed no evidence of tampering. The emails disparaged pupils and colleagues and asked Pupil A about her love life, and Bennett accepted such content would be inappropriate from a teacher. One message of 16 July 2002 read: “So Thursday you are going boy hunting…” The panel found this directly contradicted his account of both timeframe and content and found allegation 1 proved; Pupil B said she saw a message reading “hello beautiful”.

A shared diary kept by Pupil A and her friends recorded a 16 May 2002 trip to Chessington in which Bennett featured, and a photograph keyring placed him on the Vampire ride with a pupil. He first suggested the diary was fabricated, then accepted in evidence that his statement was wrong and that he was the man in the photograph. With a county council email corroborating a 2002 suspension at the school, the panel found the diary contemporaneous and found allegation 3 proved.

On the relationship itself, the pupils described a text message in which Bennett confirmed he loved Pupil B and asked that she not be told; Pupil B said she felt flattered and curious, admiring him as her teacher. The relationship, which she placed from around September 2002 after she left the school, progressed from friendship into romance and sex: a first date and kiss and walks around the grounds of his old university, which Bennett accepted he had attended. After her mother discovered the relationship, Pupil B moved in with Pupil A’s family, and told the panel Bennett then took her to a hotel, where they had sex for the first time; a 2 December 2002 email showed he knew she was living there. Calling the weight of evidence compelling and his collusion theory implausibly elaborate, the panel found allegation 2 proved, and allegation 4 proved against the contemporary standard, Circular 11/95. On motivation, the panel found the sexual relationship necessarily pursued sexual gratification and his wider conduct toward Pupil B pursued a future sexual relationship, making allegations 1, 3 and 4 sexually motivated in relation to her; his messages to Pupil A, though flirtatious, were not proved sexually motivated, so allegation 5 was found proved in relation to Pupil B, but not in relation to Pupil A.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The hearing took place in public at Cheylesmore House in Coventry, sitting from 10 to 12 July and 3 to 5 October 2023, with Bennett present and represented by Mr Andrew Faux after his application for a private hearing was refused. The panel found the proved conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and no review period. It accepted the misconduct appeared out of character beside an otherwise good history, but heard a witness describe the impact on Pupil B as massive: she had been scarred and had withdrawn from further education at Bennett’s behest. Decision maker Marc Cavey, deciding for the Secretary of State on 6 October 2023, gave considerable weight to the “serious findings of sexually motivated behaviour towards a pupil, the lack of full insight or remorse, and the significant breach of trust” inherent in the case.

Current Status

Anthony Bennett is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The prohibition carries no review period, and the Secretary of State decided further that Bennett is not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him; the decision advised of a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The prohibition ended Bennett’s teaching career outright. The panel accepted no doubt had been cast on his abilities as an educator, but found that, as the adult, he had exploited his significant influence over pupils at times for his own sexual gratification, and that the public interest outweighed his contribution to the profession. Because the order is indefinite, carries no review period and bars any application for restoration, he cannot teach in England again, and the findings remain permanently public.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Anthony Bennett” — source