Mr Enda Feeney

Introduction

Mr Enda Feeney was a biology teacher at Trinity Catholic High School in Essex. In December 2023 a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found that he had sent messages of an inappropriate and sexual nature to a pupil, referred to as Pupil A, arranged to meet her outside school, and given her money in exchange for her not reporting him. The panel found the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, and the Secretary of State prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Feeney had worked at Trinity Catholic High School since 1 September 1987, more than three decades before the events that ended his career. On 1 March 2021, an allegation came to light that he had sent messages to a student, arranged to meet her and had given her money. The matter was discussed at a meeting between the Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO), police and the school on 2 March 2021, and the school was asked to pause its investigation pending the police investigation. Feeney was suspended on 5 March 2021.

On 4 October 2021 the police confirmed that no further action would be taken, because Pupil A was not willing to provide an evidential statement, and the school began a disciplinary investigation. Nothing of evidential value was gained from forensic analysis of his devices. He did not attend disciplinary interviews — the first because he was signed off sick — but submitted a written statement, and a disciplinary hearing followed on 29 November 2021. The TRA was notified on 7 July 2022, and the panel heard the case virtually on 18 and 19 December 2023; Feeney was not present and was not represented.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted findings. Feeney admitted the core of this case himself: in his response to the notice of referral he admitted sending the messages set out in Schedule 1 and admitted allegations 2, 3, 5(a) and 5(b), and in a statement of mitigation dated 30 November 2023 he accepted that his actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. He denied allegations 1 and 4 in his written response; the panel found allegation 1 proved on the balance of probabilities and allegation 4 proved in part. He denied allegation 5(a), which the panel found not proven.

The case surfaced through social media. On 1 March 2021 a witness told the panel that a colleague had reported a post going viral within the school, alleging that a member of staff had been requesting sexual pictures and asking sexual questions; the post had been written by Pupil B at Pupil A’s request. Pupil A said an anonymous contact had begun asking her for nude pictures, that she worked out who he was from a photo and voice recordings on the account, and that she then agreed to meet him. Screenshots of the messages on her laptop matched Schedule 1, including “Would you ever consider having a fling with me?”, “Would you be up for cuddles and kisses, for instance? Are you still a virgin?” and “Any chance of sending me a pic. Doesn’t have to be naughty [wink emoji]”. Feeney admitted sending these messages but argued the exchange had lasted two days rather than the September 2020 to March 2021 window alleged; the panel accepted that the contact was concentrated in and around February 2021 but found allegation 1 proved.

The panel also found proved that in around February 2021 Feeney arranged to meet Pupil A in person outside school, and gave her money in exchange for her not reporting him. Pupil A said Feeney gave her £20 at a first meeting near a bus stop and invited her into his car. On a second occasion she took £500 from him; screenshots showed her threatening to disclose the messages — “I won’t say anything if you pay” — and Feeney replying that “if it’s money you want, I can’t get that sort of money”. In a police interview Feeney said Pupil A had threatened to send material to his workplace unless he gave her £3,000 and that they agreed on £500. The panel found allegation 3 proven, but found the £500 payment was not sexually motivated: its purpose was to bring the matter to an end. It found the payment lacked integrity but, because Pupil A had suggested it and Feeney had admitted his misconduct early, was not dishonest — allegation 5(a) was not proven.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel recommended a prohibition order with a five-year review period, taking account of Feeney’s mitigation statement, his admissions and the insight and remorse it expressed. The decision maker, acting for the Secretary of State, disagreed. Noting that the Advice on prohibiting teachers says that where a case involves “any sexual misconduct involving a child”, the public interest is likely to weigh in favour of not offering a review period, the decision maker wrote: “This case involved sexual misconduct with a child. I therefore disagree with the panel on their recommendation for a review period. In my opinion they have given greater weight to the mitigating circumstances, than can be justified by the seriousness of the findings.” The order therefore carries no review period at all.

Current Status

Mr Enda Feeney is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Because of the seriousness of the allegations found proved, the Secretary of State decided he shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The order took effect when served on him, and he had a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice. The decision maker was Sarah Buxcey, signing on 22 December 2023.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The ban ended a teaching career of more than thirty years at a single school, permanently and without any route back through the review process. The panel found his conduct involved a serious departure from the Teachers’ Standards — including abuse of position or trust and sexual misconduct — and that his actions were deliberate; it did not accept that he was acting under extreme duress despite the mitigating circumstances he described, including the pressures of the Covid-19 lockdown and long Covid. Character references described the conduct as out of character, but the decision maker concluded that repetition could risk the future wellbeing and safety of pupils and that no review period was consistent with public confidence in the profession.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Enda Feeney” — source