Mr Daniel Roberts

Introduction

Mr Daniel Roberts was a teacher and Head of Music at a school in Penrith that the published decision identifies only as [REDACTED]. He had worked there since 1 September 2017. Between September 2019 and April 2021, while Pupil A was still a pupil at the School, he exchanged emails of an inappropriate and personal nature with her, gave her lifts and met her outside school; in or around June 2022, after she had left, he began a sexual relationship with her. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency found his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and in December 2024 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely.

Background Information

The decision records that Roberts was employed at [REDACTED] — “the School” — from 1 September 2017 as a teacher and Head of Music, a role that involved one-to-one teaching. Testimonials showed he was of good character; the panel accepted he was “a dedicated and enthusiastic teacher, who achieved good results” who “made a real contribution to the school and the profession”, with a previous good history and conduct that was out of character. At the virtual hearing in December 2024 he was represented by counsel instructed by the NEU.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

It was alleged that between September 2019 and April 2021 he exchanged emails of an inappropriate and/or personal nature with Pupil A which were of considerable volume and sent in the evenings, at weekends and during school holidays; that he offered and/or gave her lifts; that he arranged to meet and/or met her outside school; and that in or around June 2022 he commenced a sexual relationship with Pupil A after she left the School, his actions being sexually motivated. He admitted allegations 1 to 4, and the sexual-motivation allegation insofar as it related to the relationship; he denied that the earlier conduct was sexually motivated.

The emails ran to a bundle of more than 3,000 pages — 10 lever arch files when printed. At around 10pm on 4 November 2020, discussing Pupil A having a bath, Mr Roberts asked “How was splishing in splashing?” and she replied “It was nice! Had candles. Only just got out…”. The panel was satisfied the emails were both inappropriate and of a personal nature, and that he had not reported them as the School’s Staff Code of Conduct required.

He admitted giving lifts — “I admit that between September 2019 and April 2021, on one or more occasions offered and gave Pupil A a lift” — while Pupil A wrote that “Daniel did offer me lifts, always with the consent of my parents…”. There was no evidence he had driven her alone, but offering lifts by email had, the panel found, “blurred the boundaries of the teacher and pupil relationship”. He admitted meeting her outside school: “Arranging to meet a pupil outside of school was not an uncommon thing for me to do.” A 5 June 2020 email asked, “Let me know if I can pop round at about 1…Coffee at the outhouse?” — Pupil A replied about sitting outside “just for safeguarding reasons, apparently…”. He accepted: “I can see that what started as Pupil A’s parents arranging to meet me, became Pupil A and I arranging to meet each other.”

The relationship itself was admitted plainly: “I admit that in June 2022, I commenced a sexual relationship with Pupil A.” Mr Roberts disclosed it to Individual G, the School’s [REDACTED], on 24 June 2022; an investigation began on 27 June and he was suspended on 5 July 2022, though a police referral brought no further action. The panel applied its test of a sexual motive — conduct “in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship”. He said it would have “repulsed” him to want a relationship with a pupil, and the panel could not be satisfied the emails, lifts and meetings were sexually motivated; that allegation was proved only in relation to the relationship itself. Those earlier findings, however, amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel acknowledged real mitigation: good-character testimonials, a previously unblemished record, conduct it accepted was out of character, and a public interest in keeping a teacher of whom “no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator”. Against that stood “multiple failures by Mr Roberts to address the safeguarding risk”, and findings that he had “actively encouraged and engaged in inappropriate communication with Pupil A” and “crossed professional boundaries and had a disregard for safeguarding policies and practices over a protracted period of time”. Publishing the findings alone would “unacceptably compromise the public interest”, so it recommended prohibition with immediate effect and a two-year review period. The decision maker, Sarah Buxcey, agreed prohibition was proportionate but rejected the review period: “I disagree with the panel on review period, in my view they have not given sufficient weight to the seriousness of the findings and the lack of full insight.”

Current Status

Mr Daniel Roberts is now “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 prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 6 January 2030, 5 years from the date of this order at the earliest” — and even then a fresh panel would decide, with no automatic right of removal; without a successful application he remains barred for life. The order took effect when served, following the panel determination of 20 December 2024 and the decision maker’s ruling of 24 December 2024. He had 28 days from notice of the order to appeal to the High Court.

Impact on Their Career/Life

For a head of department the panel described as passionate and effective, prohibition ends his career in English schools outright. Suspended within days of disclosing the relationship in June 2022, he faced the School’s disciplinary hearing in February 2023; the TRA referral followed that March. The decision maker gave less weight to his contribution to the profession than to the seriousness of the findings and his lack of full insight. Any return now depends on persuading a fresh panel, no earlier than January 2030, that the order should be set aside.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Daniel Roberts” — source