Martin Miles

Introduction

Martin Miles is a former assistant teacher of French and German and boarding housemaster at The King’s School, Canterbury, who taught there for 40 years until retiring in 2020. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found that between around 1992 and 1997 he engaged in sexually motivated misconduct toward Pupil A, a boy in his boarding house: one-to-one meetings in his school accommodation fuelled by gin and tonics, sexual discussions, invitations to stay at his flat, lap-sitting during which the pupil said Miles had an erection, and sexual contact. The panel found Pupil A credible and Miles “not a reliable witness”. In November 2023 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with no review period.

Background Information

Miles worked at The King’s School, Canterbury from September 1980 to September 2020 — four decades as an assistant teacher of French and German and boarding housemaster, with pastoral and academic oversight of the boys in his house. The panel heard that when he became housemaster, regulatory standards were “entirely different, and indeed barely existent”. Character testimonials described “an exceptional teacher of foreign languages” for whom running the house was “a vocation”; Pupil A’s first impression was of an eccentric man, “arrogant, entitled”, presiding over a boarding-house culture that felt “quite toxic” even by late-1990s standards.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Sexually motivated misconduct toward a boarder, 1992-1997. The panel found Miles repeatedly failed to observe proper boundaries and “had sought to cultivate an intimate and sexual relationship with Pupil A”.

The complaint surfaced on 28 May 2020, when Pupil C emailed the school alleging that Pupil A had been subjected to sexual abuse by Miles while studying there between 1992 and 1997. The school reported the matter to Kent police via the East Kent LADO the next day, but police decided not to investigate after Pupil A chose to remain anonymous and not report the allegations directly. During the school’s suitability investigation by a safeguarding specialist, Miles retired on 25 August 2020.

At the hearing Miles admitted meeting Pupil A one-to-one in his school accommodation, attending concerts with him, discussing matters of a sexual nature with him, encouraging or assisting him to undress or bathe, staying overnight with him at a former pupil’s home, and inviting him to stay at his flat on school grounds — but said none of it was inappropriate “in the context of the policies and procedures of the time”. He denied inviting Pupil A to sit on his lap, inviting him to engage in sexual activity, engaging in sexual contact or activity, watching him through a keyhole, and that any of it was sexually motivated.

The panel preferred Pupil A’s account. Pupil A described how, from around February 1996, Miles would give him a gin and tonic, stroke his face and say “the good thing about you [Pupil A], is that you don’t mind if I do this.” Miles asked him to sit on his lap, and Pupil A stated it was clear Miles had an erection — on multiple occasions. Pupil A also described an evening in March 1996 when, after returning late, he was told he could be punished “by the appropriate channels or in my own way”; Miles told him to take his trousers down and laid his hands on his bottom over his boxers. Pupil A further alleged Miles said he wanted to “toss me off”, grabbed his hand toward his erection, and tried to touch his genitals while bathing him during a night of vomiting. The panel found Miles’ answers to the safeguarding specialist were “contrary to Mr Miles’ own evidence” and that he “had not answered all her questions honestly”, and that his failure to report Pupil A’s complaints in 1996, 1997 and 2001 showed “a lack of transparency and integrity”.

The panel found all of the alleged behaviour proved except one particular: the claim that Miles observed Pupil A changing through a keyhole was not proved, the panel noting Pupil A’s own evidence that while he suspected watching on 9 February 1997 and other occasions, he was not observed changing. Everything else — including sexual contact and activity — was found proved, and the panel concluded the conduct “could not be anything other than of a sexual nature and for his own sexual gratification”, finding it sexually motivated throughout.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The virtual hearing, held in public with Miles present and represented by counsel, ran from 19 to 22 June and again on 9 November 2023, with Pupil A giving oral evidence. The panel found the conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession and displayed behaviours associated with sexual activity, sexual communication with a child, and controlling or coercive behaviour. Character references did not save him: no submissions were made in mitigation, the panel recorded no evidence of insight or remorse, and it recommended prohibition with immediate effect and no review period. The decision maker for the Secretary of State placed considerable weight on the seriousness of the findings, stating that “The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include sexual activity with a pupil.”

Current Status

On 27 November 2023 Marc Cavey, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education, prohibited Mr Miles from teaching indefinitely; he cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. There is no review period: in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, the decision maker determined that Miles “shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach”, closing off any route back. The findings are civil findings, made by the TRA panel on the balance of probabilities; no criminal prosecution followed, Kent police having declined to investigate in 2020.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The prohibition order ended, definitively, a teaching career that had already wound down in retirement — a 40-year tenure at a single school culminating in a lifetime ban rather than a reputation-preserving exit. Unlike teachers handed review periods, Miles cannot ever apply to have the bar lifted; the decision maker judged that allowing any review would be insufficient given findings that included sexual activity with a pupil and the absence of any demonstrated insight or remorse. The panel’s conclusion that he “sought to cultivate an intimate and sexual relationship” with a boy in his care, and its rejection of his “policies and procedures of the time” defence, fixes the historical conduct in the public record under the modern regulatory standard.

Sources

• GOV.UK, “Mr Martin Miles: Professional conduct panel outcome” — source