Mr Lloyd Bartlett

Introduction

Mr Lloyd Bartlett is a former school staff member who joined Livingstone Road Primary School in Poole in November 2019 as a Higher-Level Teaching Assistant, started a teaching apprenticeship in September 2021, and the following year began classroom teaching at the school. In January 2023, during the investigation that followed a child’s disclosure, he resigned. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel considered his case at a private meeting without a hearing after he admitted the allegations in a signed statement of agreed facts: that he allowed a child to go alone with a person he knew had previously abused a child, and then failed for around two months to report that child’s disclosure of sexual abuse. On 12 February 2024 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with a five-year review period.

Background Information

The case concerned Child A and Individual A. What is recorded is stark: in August 2022, Child A called Bartlett and disclosed to him that Individual A had sexually abused him the night before. Bartlett said nothing to the authorities at that point. It was only in October 2022 that he informed Person B of the disclosure and of his awareness that Individual A had previously sexually abused a child. Person B disclosed the events to her counsellor during a therapy session, and the counsellor informed the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub. During the resulting investigations Bartlett resigned his position at the school in January 2023, and on 10 March 2023 the school referred him to the TRA, resulting in the proceedings decided in 2024.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted misconduct. Mr Bartlett admitted the allegations in a signed statement of agreed facts, signed on 29 November 2023, and a Teaching Regulation Agency panel considered the case at a meeting without a hearing. The panel found proved that he failed to safeguard Child A — allowing him to go alone with Individual A, whom he knew had previously abused a child, then failing to report Child A’s disclosure — amounting to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

The first particular was admitted outright: in or around August 2022, Bartlett allowed Child A to go with Individual A alone when he knew Individual A had previously abused a child. The second followed from the phone call. After Child A disclosed that Individual A had sexually abused him the night before, Bartlett did not report it to the police or the local authority. When he explained the situation on 11 October 2022, he was told to immediately inform the police; in a further conversation on 13 October 2022 he confirmed he still had not reported the matter himself, though he had by then been made aware that Person B’s counsellor had reported it to the local authority. A short account from another person recorded that she also advised him to report the situation to the police on 13 October and arranged for his class to be covered while he did so. At no point following Child A’s disclosure did Bartlett report the circumstances to the police or local authority himself.

The panel held that he was under a professional duty to safeguard all children — including children who were not directly his or the school’s pupils — stemming principally from the statutory guidance “Keeping Children Safe in Education”, and that he had failed in that duty. It also found proved the allegation that his conduct placed Child A and/or other children at risk of harm. In a recorded conversation with a local authority social worker, Bartlett accepted that, considering it now, Individual A would pose a risk to the children he worked with, but said that previously “he had never allowed himself to think about it”, and recognised he should have raised concerns with relevant agencies long ago. The panel found none of the offence-related behaviours in the regulatory advice relevant — there was no conviction in this case — but considered it an unusual case on its facts whose absence from that list was not a compelling factor against a finding of unacceptable professional conduct.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found Bartlett had demonstrated a fundamental lack of judgement relating to safeguarding decisions, and that despite advice from colleagues and superiors the failures continued, with the safeguarding concern reaching the appropriate authorities only when a third party raised it. It quoted a remark recorded in one of the LADO meetings: “Lloyd does not seem to understand why this is happening to him and why everyone is concerned”. His response to the regulatory proceedings, the panel considered, demonstrated significant shortfalls in his understanding of his safeguarding responsibilities and duties; it was concerned he still posed a risk to children and considered the risk too high not to take restrictive regulatory action. Balancing his early career and the personal connection with Child A that may have blurred some boundaries against the repeated failures, it recommended an immediate prohibition order with a five-year review period.

Current Status

Mr Bartlett is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. His prohibition carries a five-year review period: he may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 01 March 2029, five years from the date of the order, at the earliest. That is not an automatic right — if he applies, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside, and without a successful application he remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. The order takes effect from the date on which it is served on him, and he has a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Bartlett’s route into classroom teaching ended before it properly began: he had moved from teaching assistant to apprenticeship to classroom teaching in roughly three years, and the prohibition order closes that path indefinitely. The findings are of a distinctive kind — not misconduct committed against a pupil, but a wholesale failure to act when a child disclosed sexual abuse by someone he knew to be an abuser. It was the panel’s conclusion that his understanding of safeguarding remained seriously deficient that fixed the five-year wait before any review, and even then any return depends on demonstrating the strengthened safeguarding awareness, training and practice the panel found absent from his response to the proceedings.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Lloyd Bartlett” — source