Sammy Laurent

Introduction

Sammy Laurent was a teacher and assistant housemaster at King Edward’s School, Witley, near Godalming, Surrey, having joined on 1 September 2020. In June 2026 a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel found he had repeatedly failed to maintain professional boundaries with, and adequately safeguard, a pupil referred to as Pupil A — through late-night personal emails, relationship advice, meetings while off sick, and stroking her hair and shoulders in the school café. He was banned from teaching indefinitely, with a three-year review period.

Background Information

On 25 March 2022 the school met Laurent about his email communications with Pupil A; he had already been warned about professional boundaries in September 2021. On 14 December 2022, matrons raised concerns after seeing him alone with Pupil A in a boarding house; on 4 March 2023 a teacher relayed concerns from three female pupils, and a LADO referral followed on 6 March 2023. On 22 May 2023 a staff member reported his contact with Pupil A in the school café; a second LADO referral followed on 24 May 2023, with an instruction to stay off the school site. After he stayed overnight at the school on 4 June 2023 anyway, the school referred him to the TRA on 3 August 2023.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Adjudicated vs. alleged. The findings below are regulatory, made on the balance of probabilities by a TRA panel at a virtual hearing held on 9 to 12 June 2026. They are findings of professional misconduct — not criminal findings; no criminal charges are mentioned in the published decision. The outcome was mixed: the panel found particulars 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 1(d), 1(e), 1(f), 1(g), 1(i), 1(j), 1(k) and 2 proved, and found particulars 1(h), 1(l), 1(m), 1(n) and 1(o) not proved.

The core of the case was a long pattern of boundary failures around one pupil. The school’s investigation counted 59 separate email chains between Laurent and Pupil A between September 2021 and January 2022 . He emailed her late at night, at weekends and on public holidays — including Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and Boxing Day 2021 — once messaging her as late as 22.58 on 8 November 2021. He admitted in writing that the frequency, timing and tone of the emails were inappropriate. On 1 December 2021 he messaged her after 10pm to forget a boy — “Don’t message him…I’m serious, I mean every word” — adding “You deserve and could do 1000x better”. When she asked him not to tell anyone about her distress at home, he replied “no I won’t, I just want you to be happy” instead of making the safeguarding disclosure the panel said was required.

The failures compounded. On 2 February 2022, while off sick, he arranged a Zoom call with Pupil A — “I’m free all evening” — which took place between 19.47 and 20.34. He kept almost no formal records: a single CPOMS safeguarding entry on 3 October 2021, then nothing despite months of contact. He accepted in writing that he never reported his concerns about Pupil A to the school’s designated safeguarding lead. On 14 December 2022, again off sick, he met her alone in a boarding-house common room during lesson time; a matron reported it as a safeguarding concern, and when challenged he answered “we’re just talking”. On 22 May 2023, CCTV captured him stroking Pupil A’s hair and placing his hands on her shoulders in the school café; a colleague’s note called the contact “far too intimate”, and the panel held that “stroking a pupil’s hair is an innately intimate gesture and would never be considered appropriate from a safeguarding perspective”. On 4 June 2023 he stayed overnight at the school despite a 24 May 2023 instruction to stay away.

The panel did not find five particulars proved: his December 2021 offer of non-schoolwork help did not breach professional boundaries, and there was insufficient evidence of close proximity to Pupil A on a school trip or at a party, of a meeting on school grounds in November 2021, or that he let her direct lesson content and sports teams. The proved conduct breached the Teachers’ Standards and Keeping Children Safe in Education, and amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found a “strong public interest” in pupil safeguarding given the “repeated failures to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil A”. It noted there was “no evidence that Mr Laurent’s actions were not deliberate”, did not accept the conduct was out of character, and gave his character references limited weight. His union representative submitted that his conduct was motivated by “good albeit misplaced intentions”, and Laurent accepted he had allowed Pupil A to become overly reliant on him and had placed them both in vulnerable situations. But the panel was “not satisfied that Mr Laurent had demonstrated sufficient insight”, noting the conduct continued despite repeated warnings, and concluded “there remains a significant risk of repetition”. It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect, judging the two-year minimum review period “would not be sufficient”. On 16 June 2026, decision maker Marc Cavey, for the Secretary of State, agreed publication of the findings alone would not satisfy the public interest and confirmed the three-year review period.

Current Status

The panel announced its decision on 12 June 2026 at a virtual hearing held from 9 to 12 June; Laurent was not present and was not represented. The order takes effect when served and bars him from teaching indefinitely in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for it to be set aside from 16 June 2029, three years after the order, but this is not automatic: a future panel would consider whether he has developed sufficient insight. He has 28 days from notice of the order to appeal to the High Court. The decision was published on gov.uk on 1 July 2026.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The order ends his teaching career in England unless a future review succeeds. The case was regulatory, not criminal: no criminal charges are mentioned in the published decision, and the panel found that none of the offence-related behaviours in the relevant Advice were engaged. What remains is a permanent public record of findings that he failed to safeguard a pupil and ignored repeated warnings.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Sammy Laurent,” published 1 July 2026 — source