Benjamin Guilfoyle
Introduction
Benjamin Guilfoyle is a former teacher at The Loyne School, a Lancaster school for children with special educational needs, who was prohibited from teaching in November 2025 after a panel found he had improperly restrained a vulnerable pupil β holding the child’s hands while forcing him through the actions of “row row row your boat” against his resistance β leaving the pupil with a friction burn. The panel found he had acted in contravention of the pupil’s positive behaviour support plan and the school’s behaviour policy, that he had not read the school’s safeguarding policy or the statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education, and that his conduct caused physical injury to a child. He admitted the allegations at the hearing, gave evidence, and was banned from teaching indefinitely with a review possible after two years.
Background Information
Guilfoyle, born 25 March 1986, commenced employment at The Loyne School on 19 April 2022 β under three months before the incident. The Loyne is a school for early-years and school-age children with special educational needs, a setting the panel noted made its pupils particularly vulnerable and requiring a high level of care. The pupil, referred to as Pupil A, had a positive behaviour support plan noting grabbing and other behaviours, and strategies including distraction and giving space. Guilfoyle had attended day one of PROACT-SCIPr training β covering proactive strategies and communication β but missed day two, which covered restrictive interventions and touch support, due to staff illness. The matter was referred to the TRA on 15 February 2023.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Contested but proved, with admissions at hearing. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found both particulars proved on the balance of probabilities after a contested hearing at which witnesses gave oral evidence and Guilfoyle admitted the allegations and that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. The findings are regulatory; no criminal charge appears in the published decision.
On 13 July 2022, towards the end of the school day, Guilfoyle played an interactive video for pupils seated in a semi-circle. When ‘Row Row Row Your Boat’ played, witnesses described him becoming crosser and shouting more than usual β “sit, sit, keep sitting” β as Pupil A tried to move out of the semi-circle. He took the pupil by the hand, used the sitting symbol on his lanyard, then attempted to perform the song’s actions with the pupil by holding his hands and rocking their torsos back and forth, their chairs close and knees touching. Pupil A resisted and tried to pull his hands away. The pupil then broke away to the corner of the room, distressed in body language and noises; Guilfoyle immediately followed and asked staff “has anyone seen what Pupil A has done to his hand”. A teaching assistant saw a red and purple mark, around 2cm long, under the skin between the pupil’s thumb and fingers, and believed it was friction from where Guilfoyle had held his hands. The panel found he placed his hands over and held Pupil A’s hands causing physical injury, and held them despite the pupil trying to pull away.
The panel found the restraint contravened Pupil A’s positive behaviour support plan and the school’s behaviour policy. Its concern focused on Guilfoyle’s safeguarding knowledge: he confirmed he had not read Keeping Children Safe in Education during his time at the school, nor the school’s own safeguarding and child protection policy, and the panel found “a significant lack of awareness of, or disregard for, his safeguarding responsibilities and duties”. It judged that public “would not expect a teacher to physically restrain a child in this manner in anything but the most serious of circumstances nor cause injury to a child through their conduct”. A witness for the school acknowledged the missed second training day “would not have prevented the incident”, which the panel weighed without letting it excuse what happened. Guilfoyle’s evidence, the panel found, demonstrated the lack of awareness rather than answering it.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision documents institutional consequences rather than public debate. The school’s own witnesses β including a teaching assistant present in the classroom β gave the account the panel accepted, describing an incident the witness was preparing to intervene in before Pupil A broke away. Guilfoyle gave evidence and produced letters of support, including one from an individual identified in the bundle, and mitigation was advanced on his behalf relating to a redacted personal circumstance which a witness said she was aware of; the panel did not believe it should have contributed to his behaviour on the day. No criminal charge appears in the published record. The panel’s finding that the incident caused a child physical injury in a special-needs setting carried the public-interest weight that drove the prohibition.
Current Status
The panel recommended a prohibition order with a two-year review period. The decision maker, David Oatley, agreed on 14 November 2025 on behalf of the Secretary of State, citing the injury to a pupil from an improper restraint, the lack of insight, and the risk of repetition. Guilfoyle is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 2027, two years from the order date β not an automatic right. The determination is dated 7 November 2025; the order takes effect when served, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The ban ends a teaching post that lasted barely a school year β from April 2022 to the 13 July 2022 incident β and bars Guilfoyle from every school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation and children’s home in England until at least late 2027. Because he was so new to the school when the incident occurred, the decision records his employment history there as a single term of months; any future return to teaching would require him to first persuade a panel that the safeguarding ignorance the panel found β never having read KCSIE or the school’s policy in a special-needs setting β had been remedied. The finding of injury to a vulnerable child sits at the centre of the record.