Philip Culling

Introduction

Philip Culling was a long-serving teacher at the Godolphin and Latymer School who rose from head of music to deputy headteacher and one of the school’s two child protection officers. Between 2012 and 2014, a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) later found, he exchanged inappropriate emails and text messages with a pupil identified as Person B, told her he was attracted to her and loved her, kissed and hugged her, engaged in oral sex with her while she was still a pupil, had sexual intercourse with her on or around 24 June 2013, and continued a sexual relationship after she left in July 2013. In April 2025 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely, with no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Culling joined the School as head of music and was appointed deputy headteacher in 2011, becoming one of its two child protection officers. On 23 April 2014 the headteacher received information alleging that he and Person B, a former pupil who had left in July 2013, were in a relationship. An investigation began and Culling resigned; no disciplinary hearing followed the investigation’s conclusion. He began working at the Holland Park Pre-Prep & Nursery in London on 26 July 2016. In June 2022 an issue was raised by someone who knew of the 2014 allegations, and on 16 August 2022 he was referred to the TRA. ## The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

The allegations, set out in a notice of hearing dated 12 July 2024, described a steady erosion of professional boundaries while Person B was a pupil. The panel was provided with a significant volume of emails exchanged between Culling and Person B, largely between May 2012 and November 2013, many unrelated to her studies and some sent late in the evening, including one at 20:35 on 23 May 2012 and a reply at 22:18 on 10 June 2013. After his birthday party, Person B received a 1am email reading “I had a great night xxx” and recalled him asking her to delete it. An email of 1 July 2012 stated “How’s the head today… Pimms is such a positive happy drink.” and referred to a category of “please delete after reading”, while another, sent at 00:11 on 13 July 2012 after a dinner party at her family home, read “Feel important. Feel valued. Feel cool. Feel significant. Because you are all of those. Great evening. Thank you x”. The panel found the emails inappropriate and evidence of an inappropriate personal connection while Person B remained a pupil.

The panel found proven that Culling contacted Person B by text message on her personal mobile, having obtained her number from school records without her consent, and that in 2012 he told her he was attracted to her, called her gorgeous, and told her he loved her. They met outside school: coffee at Café Nero, a pub visit at lunchtime on her birthday — an email noted she was “52 hours away from being a legal adult” — CDs as gifts, and flowers with a card reading “to The LOML Good Luck! Xxxx”, LOML meaning “love of my life”. Hugging from August 2012 progressed to a first kiss on 26 February 2013, kissing in a school lift, and from around April 2013 oral sex, including in a cupboard in his office. On the night of the school’s leavers’ reception, 24 June 2013, they had sexual intercourse, and the relationship continued until around July 2014, including a night in a hotel around Valentine’s Day that he had booked. The panel further found that in or around January 2023 Culling sent Person B a WhatsApp message reading “As you know I was referred to the TRA. It is going to a hearing. You may be contacted to be a witness. So the first thing was to warn you of that. The second thing was that I’m hoping you will agree with me that it is best not to engage with it. You can’t be made to.” The exchange ended with him asking “are you willing not to engage with the process”, and the panel found the message dishonest and lacking in integrity — an attempt to coerce a witness. Culling did not attend the hearing, was not represented, and admitted nothing; the panel drew an adverse inference from his absence. Every allegation was found proven: the conduct was sexually motivated and sexual in nature, and his own pastoral records from 2012 showed he knew Person B was vulnerable. ## Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, breaching the Teachers’ Standards and safeguarding guidance, with the offences of sexual activity and controlling or coercive behaviour relevant. It noted that although Culling was a child protection officer with safeguarding training, he took advantage of the position of trust he was in towards a vulnerable child for his own gratification. Person B spoke of the shame she felt and referred to having “struggled to see herself in a good light”. The 2014 school investigation attracted press attention, with journalists approaching staff and pupils and attending the homes of the head and governors. The panel recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and no review period, and decision maker Marc Cavey, acting for the Secretary of State, confirmed it. ## Current Status

Philip Culling is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. In view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved, the decision maker decided that Mr Culling shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach, meaning the ban is permanent and carries no review period. The order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher, and the date of determination was recorded as 9 April 2025, with the decision maker’s decision dated 10 April 2025. Culling has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of the order. ## Impact on Their Career/Life

The prohibition order permanently ends Culling’s teaching career in England. He had resigned from the Godolphin and Latymer School in 2014 when the relationship surfaced, worked at the Holland Park Pre-Prep & Nursery from 2016, and was referred to the TRA after the 2022 investigation. Unlike many prohibition orders, this one carries no review period and no route to restoration. The panel placed little weight on the “excellent” reference he received on leaving the School, which described him as a “hugely reliable and talented colleague”, given the extent of the misconduct found proven.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Philip Culling” — source