Oliver Shakles
Introduction
Oliver Shakles was a maths teacher at St Joseph’s Catholic College from September 2017 until his employment ended on 11 November 2020, and the pupil at the centre of his regulatory case was one he had personally identified as vulnerable and been formally instructed to keep at arm’s length. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel found, on his own admitted facts, that he built an inappropriate, sexually motivated relationship with the pupil — first through daily one-to-one classroom contact he had been told to limit to five minutes, then through sexual conversations, and finally through secret email and Instagram contact after he had been sent a written no-contact instruction. He signed a statement of agreed facts but expressed no remorse and no insight, and on 4 April 2022 decision maker Alan Meyrick banned him from teaching for life, with no review period and no right to apply for restoration. He shares a surname with Liam Shakles, a different former teacher banned by the regulator the same year.
Background Information
Shakles joined St Joseph’s Catholic College as a maths teacher on 1 September 2017. In mid-May 2018, during the 2017/2018 academic year, he raised concerns that Pupil A — a vulnerable pupil whose care arrangements are redacted in the published decision — was spending a lot of time in his classroom, and asked how best to provide support. After discussion with the pupil’s mother, the school allowed Pupil A to visit his room for five minutes each day to prepare for the school day, on the explicit condition that he not engage in conversation and move the pupil on afterwards. Weeks later the school’s medical officer raised concerns about the strength of the pupil’s feelings for him, and at a meeting on 21 June 2018 Shakles was told the pupil had an over-reliance on the relationship, had made [REDACTED] if the ability to talk with him were removed, and must not discuss anything but school work. The panel later recorded that he went on to receive a final written warning and a direct instruction not to have any contact with Pupil A — which he ignored.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Banned for life for a sexually motivated relationship with a vulnerable pupil, maintained against a written no-contact instruction; no review and no restoration.
In November 2019 two members of the school community reported seeing Pupil A sitting on Shakles’ classroom desk with his chair pulled close, before school, during breaks, lunches and after school — conduct one observer said “didn’t feel right” — and a member of staff found the pupil alone in his room, shoes off, unreported and not moved on. The panel found the frequency and nature of this contact far exceeded the authorised five minutes a day. Shakles admitted he had discussed sexual positions with the pupil — a student’s incident statement recorded the pupil saying they had discussed “sexual questions like what position you do” — and talked about his wife and son in breach of the school-work-only instruction. After a 5 December 2019 letter ordered no contact whatsoever, he exchanged personal email addresses with Pupil A around 2020, created a separate email account because he “was getting panicky about using [his] main one”, and steered the pupil to Instagram so that “his phone would not receive a notification that his wife might see”. In those exchanges he asked for pictures of the pupil “looking pretty”, commented on what he would like to do to her body, and admitted he had imagined having sex with her on his classroom desk.
Shakles admitted every particular through a signed statement of agreed facts and the case was decided without a hearing, but the panel verified the allegations against the underlying evidence and found them all proved, concluding that he had engaged in and developed an inappropriate relationship with Pupil A that was sexually motivated. It noted that his flouting of a management instruction that would have protected both him and the pupil had consequences for the school’s ability to safeguard her welfare, exposing her to the potential for harm. His co-operation extended only to signing the agreed facts: beyond that the panel found no insight into the impact on the pupil, her family and the school community, and no remorse. “In the absence of any remorse, apology or insight, and in light of his flouting of a management instruction that would have protected both him and Pupil A, the panel considered that there was a real risk of repetition.” No criminal proceedings are recorded in the decision; the case was brought as unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The panel recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and — because the case involved sexual communication with a pupil and a demonstrated willingness to defeat management instructions — no review period. Meyrick agreed, giving considerable weight to the absence of remorse or insight and observing that a published finding alone could not satisfy public confidence in a case of sexual communication with a pupil. He also accepted the panel’s view that Shakles did not have a previously good history, given the final written warning and the ignored direct instruction, and that no up-to-date testimonials or evidence of teaching ability had been put before the panel. The prohibition took effect from service of the order, and in view of the seriousness of the findings Shakles was barred even from applying for restoration of his eligibility to teach — the regulator’s most final structure.
Current Status
Oliver Shakles is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The order carries no review period, so no date exists at which he may ask for it to be set aside, and the decision maker separately removed any entitlement to apply for restoration. His employment at St Joseph’s Catholic College ended on 11 November 2020, before the regulatory case was decided, and the published decision leaves no route back into the profession he entered in 2017. The decision does not record any criminal charge or conviction arising from the same conduct.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The case is a study in a safeguarding instruction treated as an obstacle rather than a boundary: the school had identified the risk, adjusted the pupil’s routine around it, warned Shakles in writing, and been defeated at every step. Each escalation — the five-minute rule, the final written warning, the December 2019 no-contact letter — was followed not by retreat but by a more concealed channel of contact, ending in a second email account and Instagram messages hidden from his wife’s view of his phone. For the regulator, the combination of sexual motivation, a vulnerable pupil and demonstrated defiance made lifetime prohibition the only proportionate outcome.