Mr Lee Fountain

Introduction

Mr Lee Fountain was an English teacher at Chatham & Clarendon Grammar School in Ramsgate, where he had taught since 1 September 2007. On or around 11 October 2022 he was captured on CCTV kissing a sixth-form pupil under 18 — Pupil A — in a classroom at the school. Nine days later he accepted a police caution for an abuse-of-position-of-trust offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found all allegations against him proved, and on 17 April 2025 the Secretary of State’s decision maker prohibited him from teaching indefinitely, with no entitlement ever to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Fountain joined Chatham & Clarendon Grammar School as an English teacher at the start of the autumn term in 2007 and remained there for some fifteen years. The decision records his date of birth, 8 October 1978, but few further career details. His case was considered without a hearing, at his own request, on the basis of a signed statement of agreed facts in which he admitted unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. A professional conduct panel — Paul Burton in the chair, with Julie Wells and Jane Brothwood — met virtually to determine the case on 14 April 2025.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

The incident happened on or around 11 October 2022, when Fountain was captured on CCTV with Pupil A, a sixth form student under the age of 18, in a classroom. The panel did not view the footage itself, but accepted the account of it in the record of police interview, during which the CCTV footage was played and the events described and confirmed as accurate by Mr Fountain. The pair were sat at desks opposite each other, talking; Fountain then approached Pupil A as she put on a jacket or hoody and kissed her on the lips. On that account, Pupil A put her arms around his neck, Fountain put his arm around her, and they kissed again.

Fountain admitted allegations 1(a) — putting his arm(s) around Pupil A — and 1(b) — kissing her — together with the allegation of sexual motivation, in a statement of agreed facts signed on 27 August 2024. The panel found he had failed to maintain appropriate boundaries with Pupil A. On motivation, it applied the guidance in Basson that: “A sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship”, and the approach in Haris, where it was held that “in the absence of a plausible innocent explanation for what he did, the facts spoke for themselves.” Kissing a pupil on the lips was, on the balance of probabilities, done in pursuit of sexual gratification and was “an inherently intimate and sexual act”; the embrace could not be distinguished from it.

The third allegation concerned the criminal outcome. On 20 October 2022, Fountain signed a police caution described in the decision as one for “Sexual Activity with a female (aged: 13-17) adult abuse of position of trust (offender does not believe victim is over 18 abuse of position of trust on 11 October 2022)” contrary to section 16 (1) (a)-(c), (e) (i) and (5) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. The caution set out that, being a person aged 18 or over in a position of trust in relation to a girl aged 17 and not reasonably believing she was aged 18 or over, he “intentionally touched her and the touching was sexual”. The matter was referred to the TRA on 18 November 2022. The panel found the conduct particularly serious because it took place inside the school, “where the safeguarding and welfare of children should be absolute”, and the caution went “to the heart of his role as a teacher”.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found all three allegations proved and concluded that Fountain’s conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, breaching the Teachers’ Standards and statutory safeguarding guidance. It identified strong public interest considerations: the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession, and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. Although “there is evidence that Mr Fountain had ability as an educator”, the adverse considerations outweighed any interest in retaining him, “since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher, and he sought to exploit his position of trust”. Public confidence, it said, “could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Fountain was not treated with the utmost seriousness”. Finding that his regret — “stress, a temporary massive lapse in judgement and through allowing myself to get too close to a student” — fell short of “true insight and remorse”, it recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and no review period.

Current Status

On 17 April 2025, Sarah Buxcey, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State, endorsed the panel’s recommendation. Her decision records that Mr Fountain “is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England”. She rejected the less intrusive course of publishing the findings alone, asking whether that would satisfy an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen”, and concluded a prohibition order was necessary to maintain public confidence. Given the seriousness of the findings, she further decided that Fountain “shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach”. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him; he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The order permanently ends a teaching career of more than fifteen years, all of it at one school. Most prohibited teachers may apply for their order to be reviewed after a minimum of two years; Fountain has no such route, the decision maker having removed any entitlement to apply for restoration. The panel treated as aggravating that he knew Pupil A was particularly vulnerable — he had been told to “treat her with kid gloves” — and found that his regret centred on himself rather than on the impact on his pupil. In the guidance the panel applied, sexual misconduct involving a child weighs heavily against any return: for Fountain, there is no path back to the classroom.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Lee Fountain” — source