Mark Portass

Introduction

Mark Portass was a teacher who, on 16 September 2020, was convicted at Coventry and Warwickshire Magistrates’ Court of attempting to sexually communicate with a child — an online contact he believed was a 13-year-old girl, whose breasts, bottom and the touching of them he discussed on the Lycos chat platform. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to eight weeks’ imprisonment suspended for twelve months, a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 30 days, a £115 victim surcharge and seven years on the sex offender register, running to September 2027. When the Teaching Regulation Agency brought proceedings on the conviction, Portass did not respond; a tracing agent could not find him, and the case was decided at a hearing he neither attended nor was represented at. On 29 July 2022 decision maker Alan Meyrick banned him from teaching for life, with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

The offence was captured in unusual detail because the recipient was not a child. On 20 September 2019, police officers attended a property believed to be occupied by Portass to execute a warrant obtained on intelligence that he had engaged in sexual communication, via the internet, with a 13-year-old girl. The evidence established that the activity took place on 9 May 2019 using the Lycos chat platform; Portass was arrested and interviewed in custody, the interview recorded and transcribed, and he was subsequently prosecuted for an offence under the Criminal Attempts Act 1981, convicted upon entering a guilty plea. The regulatory panel noted there was evidence he was contracted to a school at the time of the offence, though his conduct did not take place in an education setting and the decision names no employing school. The panel accepted the memorandum of conviction as conclusive proof of the offence and found the sole allegation — conviction of a relevant offence — proved.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Convicted of attempting sexual communication with a person he believed to be 13 — suspended custody, seven-year registration; vanished before the hearing and banned for life with no review.

The conviction record set out the offence in plain terms: on 9 May 2019, for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification, Portass intentionally attempted to communicate with Person A, a person under 16 whom he did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being sexual — namely talking about her breasts and bottom and touching her. The sentence combined suspended custody with a supervision regime, but the panel emphasised the registration requirement: Portass remains on the sex offender register, in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003, until September 2027. The panel found the conviction involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards, including the provisions on treating children with dignity and safeguarding their wellbeing, noting expressly that while the actions did not occur in an education setting, they were relevant to teaching and working with children. It also observed, as the panel put it, that “thankfully, no actual harm befell any child in this case” — the offence being one of attempt.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel’s aggravation analysis centred on what the conviction said about its holder rather than on the offence’s setting: it raised obvious concerns about his understanding of and responsibility for safeguarding and keeping children safe, there was no evidence of remediation, and the conduct amounted to a clear breach of the Teachers’ Standards raising serious public and child-protection concerns. It considered whether publication of the findings alone would suffice and concluded it would not, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen: a serious sexual offence conviction involving a child demanded particularly strong public-interest reasons for prohibition. Portass’s total non-engagement shaped the fairness analysis — the TRA wrote to him repeatedly, used a tracing agent, and sent the hearing bundle by recorded delivery; the panel found his absence voluntary, a waiver of his right to attend, and no purpose served by adjournment. It recommended prohibition without a review period.

Current Status

Meyrick’s order of 29 July 2022 prohibits Portass from teaching indefinitely; he cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England, and he is not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The decision maker endorsed the panel’s reasoning that the nature of the conviction and the absence of any evidence of insight or remorse meant allowing no review period was necessary, proportionate and in the public interest. The order takes effect on service, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days. The criminal sentence’s operational requirements — the suspended committal and the rehabilitation activity days — fell due within a year of sentencing, but the registration requirement attached to the conviction is a live constraint until September 2027, and the teaching prohibition is permanent.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case illustrates how an online offence committed outside any school can still end a teaching career outright: the panel had no evidence of harm to any pupil, yet treated the conviction as dispositive because it went to the teacher’s own understanding of safeguarding. Portass’s disappearance from the process — no response to the notice, no traceable address, no attendance — removed every mitigating path short of the conviction itself; there were no references, no expressions of remorse, no evidence of steps taken, and the sanction was set accordingly. The contrast between the criminal and regulatory outcomes is stark: the magistrates’ court suspended an eight-week term, while the regulator imposed a lifetime ban without review, because the two systems ask different questions — the court about punishment for one offence, the regulator about whether the public can trust the person with children again. On the evidence available to it, the answer here was never in doubt.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Mark Portass” — source