Peter Smith

Introduction

Peter Smith is a former Teacher of Maths at Abbeyfield School in Northampton who was banned from teaching indefinitely in February 2021. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency found him guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute on the basis of a harassment conviction, a failure to disclose previous disciplinary action, and sexual activity in the presence of a child. Two allegations were expressly found not proved: withholding information about his conviction, and dishonesty or lack of integrity. Sarah Buxcey, acting for the Secretary of State, imposed an indefinite prohibition order.

Background Information

Born on 8 April 1971, Smith was an experienced maths teacher in Northampton. On 12 May 2014 he was convicted at Wellingborough Magistrates’ Court of pursuing a course of conduct which amounted to harassment between 1 May 2013 and 19 December 2013, contrary to sections 2(1) and 2(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, and was sentenced to 14 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months. The panel later noted his disregard for police harassment warnings and that he kept teaching for over three years after the conviction.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

In March 2018 Smith applied to Abbeyfield School, disclosing a conviction for harassment without violence on his application form. He was interviewed in April 2018, where he was questioned about the conviction, and started work in June 2018. On his first day he provided his DBS certificate, which disclosed the sentence of 14 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 18 months. Asked for further information, Smith said he had no court documentation, but offered the notes he had given his solicitor at the time. Those notes revealed that he had engaged in sexual activity on a number of occasions in the presence of a child. The school suspended him on 12 July 2018 pending investigation, held a probation review meeting on 18 July, and dismissed him on 19 July 2018. His appeal failed.

The TRA’s notice of proceedings, dated 11 December 2019, set out six allegations. The panel convened in Coventry on 5 February 2020, sitting in public save for parts concerning Smith’s health, with Smith represented by the NASUWT; adjourned part-heard on 7 February 2020, it reconvened remotely on 16 and 17 February 2021 with substitute panellists.

It found four allegations proved. The first was the harassment conviction, which Smith admitted; the panel treated it as a relevant offence. The third was his failure to disclose previous disciplinary action: asked on the application form whether he had “been subject to any disciplinary action in a previous position”, he replied “No”, yet a previous school had issued a written warning in October 2011 after a formal disciplinary investigation, and his appeal failed. The fourth alleged that he engaged in sexual activity in the presence of a child. Smith acknowledged having had sex with another adult while a child was in the room, but insisted the child had no idea; Witness A said Smith had admitted taking part in such activity in a child’s presence. On the balance of probabilities the panel found it proved. Smith accepted that a teacher who became aware of such conduct should report it, and described his own conduct as “absolutely disgusting”. The sixth allegation, that this conduct affected or had the potential to affect his suitability to work with children, was also proved.

Two allegations were not proved. The panel found Smith had not withheld information about his conviction: he disclosed it at the outset, the school did not specifically ask about the sentence at interview, and if the school deemed it relevant it should have gathered that information itself. The dishonesty allegation, tied to the disclosure failures, also failed: the panel accepted Smith may have believed that confidentiality terms in a compromise agreement meant he need not disclose the 2011 warning, and found neither dishonesty nor a lack of integrity. Allegations 1, 4 and 6 amounted to serious misconduct; allegation 3, though proved, did not breach the Teachers’ Standards.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel weighed whether prohibition was appropriate and proportionate. It found strong public interest considerations: the protection of pupils, given the serious finding of sexual activity in the presence of a child, and the risk that public confidence would be seriously weakened if such conduct were not treated with the utmost seriousness. Smith’s sexual activity with another adult, in the presence of a child in the same room, was a significant factor. Mitigation included a previously good record, five character references, the panel’s acceptance that the conduct was out of character, and the insight Smith showed. The panel still concluded that the public interest outweighed his interests, and recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a review period after three years. On 19 February 2021 Buxcey agreed, holding that a two-year review would not suffice and that a three-year review period was required to maintain public confidence.

Current Status

Smith is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but “not until 24 February 2024, 3 years from the date of this order at the earliest”. That is not an automatic right: a fresh panel will meet to consider whether the order should be lifted, and without a successful application he remains prohibited indefinitely. The order took effect from the date it was served on him, and he had a right of appeal to the Queen’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The ban ended a teaching career already cut short: Smith lost his Abbeyfield post in July 2018, weeks after the DBS disclosure, and the 2021 order bars any return to classroom teaching in England unless a future set-aside application succeeds. By the hearing he told the panel he had a steady job and a stable family situation, and character references described a well-regarded tutor and community-club volunteer.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Peter Smith” — source