Daniel Usher-Clark

Introduction

Daniel Usher-Clark is a former teacher at Bishop Fox’s School in Taunton who was banned from teaching indefinitely in October 2024 after a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found sexually motivated online conduct towards a former pupil, plus sexualised Skype messages. The panel expressly did not find proved the gravest counts: all allegations by Pupil B of violent sexual assault, and Pupil C’s photo requests and physical counts. Marc Cavey, deciding for the Secretary of State, imposed a prohibition order with a five-year review period.

Background Information

Usher-Clark qualified as a teacher in 2002 and started at The King Alfred School that September. In 2006 he took a role at The Castle School in Taunton as head of house and head of subject, in 2014 moved to North London Collegiate School Jeju in South Korea, and returned in 2018 to Bishop Fox’s School, initially as a supply teacher and then as a head of year. He was known as “Clarky”, and in a witness statement to the TRA Person A stated that he “regularly ‘dropped’ the Usher element in his surname”; the decision records the Skype username “duclarky (Dan Clark)” and an email handle “duclark”. The case arose after a July 2019 disclosure by a former Castle School pupil to a healthcare clinician, triggering school investigations and a police inquiry.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Panel findings, not convictions. A police investigation ended without a conviction — Pupil B withdrew co-operation — and several of the gravest counts were expressly NOT found proved. What follows distinguishes the panel’s proven findings from the allegations it rejected.

The proven findings begin with Pupil A, a King Alfred pupil he never directly taught. Around September or October 2006, after he gave her his personal email address on leaving the school, an eight-page MSN Messenger conversation took place under the username “Clarky”, written from the perspective of a teacher. He twice sought to view her webcam, which she declined, and sent messages including “still flirtin wiv teachers [?]”, “u always seemed naughty! … dirty / rude / sexy”, “am not a teacher now… not yours! … may be a good thing… we may have flirted 2 much!”, “single and horny now!!!” and “hmmmmmmmmm a shower!!! / there’s a thought … bet u look nice in the shower!!!”. The panel found this conduct proved, sexual in nature and sexually motivated for sexual gratification.

By contrast, the panel found not proved every sub-allegation concerning Pupil B, who alleged that between around 2006 and 2014 he ground his crotch against her hip, put his hand inside her knickers, forced her to masturbate him and perform oral sex, grabbed her throat, and raped her. She did not give live evidence and her account was hearsay; the panel cited inconsistencies, including her description of his office, and “the inherent improbability of a teacher conducting a violent sexual assault, on multiple occasions, in a school office during school times”, and could not fairly attribute significant weight to it. For Pupil C, only the email counts were proved: he gave her his personal email address and emailed her, crossing professional boundaries, conduct the panel held was not an inherently sexual activity. It found not proved the allegations that he asked her for photographs or wrote “so beautiful can you show me more”, since no emails from the material time were recovered and no photograph was found on his devices, and found not proved her counts of kisses in his office and at her home, a bedroom incident and other physical acts, citing inherent improbability and inconsistencies in her account.

The panel did prove Allegations 3 to 7: Skype messages from the account “duclarky (Dan Clark)” in 2013 and 2014. Asked “ever done anything naughty at school”, it answered “yup / Wannked / Perved / Fuked another teacher / Wanked in my cupboard after class / Looked at girls tits”; asked what he was into, it replied “Role playing / Spanking / Uniforms / You’d Def need detention / But hopefully uniform would be right / Hold you down and make you suck sir / All in your school uniform”. Later messages included “Love younger / But legal only / Teacher role” and “Sir is just getting in the shower… thinkin of my naughty girl joining me…”. The panel found him responsible for the account and messages and found them sexual and sexually motivated; Allegation 8 was proved in relation to Allegations 1 and 3 to 7. He denied the allegations, disowning his recorded admission that the username was his, which the panel did not accept.

Public Reaction and Consequences

Police seized his devices and found no trace of the photograph Pupil C described; Pupil B withdrew co-operation and the decision records no conviction. Bishop Fox’s School investigated and disciplined him and referred the case to the TRA. The panel, sitting across April, September and October 2024, found Allegation 1 and Allegations 3 to 7 proved, only the email boundary counts proved for Pupil C, Allegation 9 (illegal images) not proven in its entirety, and Allegation 10 (indicative uniform images) proved. It concluded Allegation 1 amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and Allegations 1 and 3 to 7 and 10 conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and recommended prohibition.

Current Status

Marc Cavey, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State on 15 October 2024, imposed a prohibition order taking effect from service on the teacher. Usher-Clark 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 2029, five years from the date of the order; this is not an automatic right. The decision maker accepted the five-year review period as “a proportionate response to the serious misconduct found and to enable the teacher to develop full insight into his behaviour”. He may appeal to the High Court within 28 days.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The prohibition ends a teaching career that ran from 2002 through schools in Somerset and South Korea. He denied all the allegations, was represented by the NASUWT, engaged fully with the regulatory process, and had no previous findings against him; the panel noted his positive good character evidence and five written references. No public response beyond the hearing record appears in the decision. With no criminal conviction, no register or sexual harm prevention order consequences arise; the bar on teaching and the published findings are the practical effect.

Sources

• TRA, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Daniel Usher-Clark” — source