Peter Jenkins
Introduction
Peter Jenkins, born in 1969, was Head of Religious Education at Whitecross High School in Hereford from 1 September 1999 to 31 August 2006. In July 2022, long after he had left the classroom, he pleaded guilty at Warwick Crown Court to fifteen sexual offences committed against five victims between 1984 and 2005, while he was a teacher; he accepted that some of the offending involved pupils he taught. He was sentenced to thirteen years’ imprisonment. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct through conviction of a relevant offence, and in December 2025 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with no entitlement to apply for restoration.
Background Information
Jenkins’ last known employment as a teacher was at Whitecross High School, where he led the religious education department for seven years. The sentencing judge referred to his position as a school teacher alongside his standing within church groups. He reported himself to the police on 20 January 2020 and, after a voluntary interview under caution, was charged with offences relating to the five victims. The matter was referred to the TRA on 13 October 2020, and he was made the subject of an interim prohibition order on 1 June 2023, pending the final determination of his case.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Conviction-based prohibition. The findings below rest on criminal convictions recorded at Warwick Crown Court, where Jenkins pleaded guilty on 27 July 2022 and was sentenced on 12 August 2022, and a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel’s finding that he was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct through conviction of a relevant offence. The prohibition order is a regulatory sanction: the case was considered at a private virtual meeting on 4 December 2025, without a hearing, at Jenkins’ own request, on his signed statement of agreed facts.
Jenkins reported himself to the police on 20 January 2020. He was interviewed voluntarily under caution and admitted committing various sexual offences against five victims between 1984 and 2005, while he was a teacher; he accepted that some of the offending involved pupils he taught. He was subsequently charged, and on 27 July 2022 he pleaded guilty to all fifteen offences at Warwick Crown Court. On 12 August 2022 the judge imposed a custodial sentence of thirteen years, indefinite Sex Offenders’ Notification Requirements and a Sexual Harm Prevention Order until a further order, and made a Restraining Order in respect of two of the victims.
The certificate of conviction, which the panel accepted as conclusive proof of the convictions and the facts necessarily implied by them, recorded fifteen offences: seven counts of indecent assault on a girl under 14; two counts of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13; three counts of gross indecency with a girl under 16; rape of a female under 16; attempted indecent assault on a girl under 16; and sexual assault on a female. The panel considered these offences to be at the most serious end of the spectrum.
In sentencing remarks quoted by the panel, the judge told Jenkins: “The veneer of respectability in terms of your position as a school teacher and your position within church groups hid the awful reality of your predatory behaviour towards young girls which had persisted well into your 30s”. The panel considered that breaching trust as a teacher and engaging in sexual activity with a pupil would fall way below the standard expected of a teacher at the time, and found that Jenkins’ actions were deliberate.
The only mitigation identified was Jenkins’ self-report to the police and his guilty pleas; the judge said that “It is extremely rare in my experience in the context of sexual offending” for an offender not to dispute his offending, remarking: “You have not done that and so substantial credit is justified.” Of the victims, the judge said: “Obviously, you have caused them irreparable harm.” The panel found the allegation proved and recommended that a prohibition order be imposed with immediate effect, without a review period.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published decision records no public or media reaction; the documented consequences are criminal and regulatory. Alongside the thirteen-year custodial sentence, the indefinite notification requirements and the prevention and restraining orders, the panel found a strong public interest consideration in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and in the protection of other members of the public, given the serious findings of inappropriate relationships with children and abuse of trust. It considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as Jenkins’ were not treated with the utmost seriousness, that his behaviour was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated, and that the adverse public interest considerations outweighed any interest in retaining him in the profession. The interim ban of June 2023 was followed by the final prohibition in December 2025.
Current Status
As of the determination dated 4 December 2025 and the decision taken on behalf of the Secretary of State by David Oatley, dated 10 December 2025, Mr Jenkins is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. No review period was set: the panel, having received no evidence of remediation, remorse, or insight and taking into account the severity, nature, duration, and number of offences committed against different victims, was highly concerned about the risk of repetition. Jenkins shall therefore not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The order takes effect when served; he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition permanently ends Jenkins’ teaching career in England. He provided no character statements or mitigation to the panel, which found no evidence that he had demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or contributed significantly to the education sector. In his favour it weighed only that he had reported himself to the police and admitted all of the offences without a complaint being first made against him. The decision maker nonetheless concluded that a lifetime ban was necessary, given the offences against children, the breach of trust and the risk of repetition, and that the public interest outweighed his interests.