Jeremy Fow

Introduction

Jeremy Fow taught at Windlesham House School, an independent prep school in West Sussex. In April 2023 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely after a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel confirmed his convictions for five offences of recording a person doing a private act, four offences of taking an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, and one offence of making an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child — conduct a judge found was committed “over a course of years in a flagrant breach of trust” and sentenced to three years’ immediate custody, with a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for life and sex offender registration. Fow admitted the conviction and the case was decided without a hearing at his request. Decision maker Sarah Buxcey imposed a lifetime ban with no review period and no right to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Fow worked at Windlesham House School. On or around 5 February 2020 he was convicted of the ten offences: five of voyeurism — recording a person doing a private act — four of taking an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph of a child, and one of making such an image. At sentencing the judge found the conduct was committed for his own sexual gratification, and commented: “I take the view that a series of offences of this kind, committed over a course of years in a flagrant breach of trust, can only be dealt with by a sentence of immediate custody.” Fow received three years’ imprisonment, a lifetime Sexual Harm Prevention Order, and registration on the Sex Offenders Register. The TRA hearing on 24 April 2023 proceeded on his signed statement of agreed facts at a meeting without his attendance.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Convicted and admitted. Fow admitted the conviction of a relevant offence in a signed statement of agreed facts; the panel accepted the certificate of conviction as proof of the offences and decided the case without a hearing at his request.

The panel’s findings recorded the ten convictions and the sentence that followed, treating the three-year custodial term as “indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed”. It examined his mitigation letters to the panel: a letter dated 7 September 2020 stating “I have already admitted guilt to the allegations…” and “[I] can only apologise to the profession for letting everyone down so badly. I live with this ‘shame’ every day of my life”, and a letter of 8 July 2021 reading “Again, I am thoroughly ashamed of what happened and extremely remorseful”. The panel acknowledged the expressions of remorse but found that Fow “had not demonstrated any remorse or insight in to how his actions could have impacted the children that were involved” — the children depicted, rather than the profession whose opinion the letters addressed. It also referred to submissions from the criminal proceedings that he was a teacher with an unblemished record, while noting it had been provided no evidence of his abilities as a teacher.

The panel weighed the judge’s findings — offences over years, committed for his own sexual gratification, in flagrant breach of trust — against the Advice’s categories for voyeurism and child image offences, both of which point to prohibition and against any review period. It noted his conduct occurred over a lengthy period and that many people experience difficult life events without committing serious criminal offences, rejecting the contextual mitigation. It recommended prohibition with immediate effect and no review period. Buxcey adopted the recommendation, concluding that publication of the findings alone would leave the public-interest considerations unacceptably compromised.

Public Reaction and Consequences

No press coverage attaches to the case; the published decision is the public record. The criminal court had already imposed the heaviest consequences available — immediate custody, a lifetime prevention order, registration — before the regulator acted. The breach-of-trust framing in the sentencing remarks stands alongside the decision’s silence on any connection between the offences and his school: the published record contains no finding that the victims were pupils or connected to Windlesham House. The panel also noted comments about personal life events in his mitigation, which it set aside as immaterial to offences of this gravity. The professional case concluded in a single remote meeting three years after the convictions.

Current Status

Fow is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The decision maker further decided that he shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The determination is dated 24 April 2023, with Buxcey’s order dated 27 April 2023, effective from service. He retains a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days of notice of the order; the published record shows none was filed.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Fow’s case shows the regulator distinguishing between remorse directed at the profession and insight directed at victims: his letters expressed shame at letting teaching down, and the panel accepted them as remorse while finding they left untouched the question of the children in the images and recordings. That gap — apology without victim-focused insight — is precisely what the Advice instructs decision makers to weigh against any review period. The three-year sentence and lifetime order mark the offences as serious sexual offending by any measure; the professional ban adds the career consequence, permanent and unappealable in practice, on top of the criminal ones. His unblemished-teaching-record submission, even if accepted, had no purchase: the Advice grades the offence category, not the classroom history.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Professional conduct panel meeting outcome: Mr Jeremy Fow” — source