Jonathon Baynham

Introduction

Jonathon Baynham was a teacher at the Amicus Community (’the School’), with his former employer recorded as The Amicus School, Arundel. In May 2025, a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency heard a joint case against Baynham and a colleague, Colleague A. The panel found that on 22 August 2022 he signed an employer reference for Colleague A purporting to be signed on behalf of the School when he was not qualified or authorised to do so, under a mutual arrangement whereby the two colleagues provided references for one another to avoid a poor reference from their line manager. The panel found his conduct dishonest and lacking integrity, and on 5 June 2025 decision maker Sarah Buxcey prohibited him from teaching indefinitely.

Background Information

Baynham commenced employment at the Amicus Community on 11 November 2020, and the matter was referred to the TRA on 3 January 2023. The panel convened from 27 to 30 May 2025 by way of a virtual hearing to consider the joint case of Baynham and Colleague A; Baynham was not present and was not represented. The panel comprised Mrs Monique Clark (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mr Peter Whitelock and Ms Mona Sood. Baynham admitted the allegations in his response to the notice of hearing dated 16 February 2025, subject to his June 2023 written response.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

The case arose from an exchange of references between Baynham and Colleague A. On 22 August 2022, Baynham completed and signed an employer reference form for Colleague A, which was provided to an external recipient rather than the employing school. The panel noted the form was plainly meant to be an employer reference, since the answers “would require employer/line management knowledge to complete accurately”. Colleague A told the panel she deliberately omitted Witness A, the line manager, as a referee because she was sure she would receive an unsatisfactory reference from her, and instead put Baynham’s name forward; as he was also job-hunting at the time, she would reciprocate by providing him with a reference. Baynham texted Colleague A to say he did not know details such as her date of birth, salary, start date, disciplinary record, safeguarding record and reason for leaving the School, and she supplied them so he could finish the reference. In his written response to the TRA’s notice of referral in June 2023, he “confessed” to affixing his signature on the reference and subsequently sending it.

The panel found allegation 1(a) proved: Baynham signed the reference when he knew or ought to have known he was not qualified or authorised to do so. Allegation 1(b), that he included information he knew was incorrect, was not proven, as no information in the reference was shown to be incorrect and Colleague A had no disciplinary proceedings or safeguarding concerns in her history. A second reference, completed by Colleague A for Baynham and dated 18 October 2022, answered ’employer’ to the question ‘in what capacity are you providing this reference.’ The panel concluded that Colleague A herself sent that reference to a potential future employer, and because allegation 2 alleged that Baynham had submitted it, it was not open to the panel to find it proven; the reference also contained no instruction not to contact his line manager.

The panel found he had failed to act within the higher standards expected of a teacher, and that “Mr Baynham had failed to act with integrity by deliberately completing a reference for a colleague when he was not qualified or authorised to do so”. It found he provided the reference knowingly “as part of their mutual agreement to provide references for one another to avoid a poor reference from their line manager”, and judged by the standards of ordinary decent people, “the panel found that Mr Baynham’s conduct was objectively dishonest”. Allegations 3(a) and 3(b) were both proven. The conduct breached Part 2 of the Teachers’ Standards, and although the panel considered it was at the lower end of the scale, involving “an isolated incident whereby he sought to mislead a potential employer as to the capacity in which he provided a reference”, it found the conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel identified public interest considerations in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. Relevant behaviours from the published Advice included “dishonesty or a lack of integrity” and “collusion”. The panel noted “there was no evidence from Mr Baynham demonstrating any insight or remorse for his actions”, and it also noted his experience in the educational recruitment sector. Concluding that prohibition was “both proportionate and appropriate”, the panel recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a review period of two years. Decision maker Sarah Buxcey agreed, finding the order necessary to maintain public confidence and giving considerable weight to the findings of dishonesty and absence of insight or remorse.

Current Status

Baynham is prohibited from teaching indefinitely. The decision states: “This means that Mr Jonathon 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 11 June 2027, two years from the date of the order at the earliest, and this is not an automatic right; if he does, a panel will consider whether it should be set aside. Without a successful application, he remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of it.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The prohibition order ends Baynham’s teaching career in England. The panel weighed the absence of any evidence of insight or remorse as a significant factor, alongside the finding that his conduct, though an isolated incident, was deliberately dishonest, and heard he was subject to an active formal performance improvement plan at the time. It considered that publishing the findings alone would unacceptably compromise the public interest. Unless he successfully applies to have the order set aside from 11 June 2027 onwards, he remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Jonathon Baynham” — source