Mr Samuel Hawley

Introduction

Mr Samuel Hawley is a former PE teacher at Saffron Walden County High School in Essex, where he was employed from 1 September 2019. In February 2024 a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel found he had made inappropriate physical contact with a pupil known as Pupil A, asked her intrusive personal questions, repeatedly sought to meet her alone and continued one-to-one contact with her despite management advice not to do so. Unlike many cases of this kind, the matter was contested: Hawley attended a public hearing, denied the allegations and gave live evidence — though he admitted one particular of allegation 1, and both limbs of allegation 2, through that evidence. He was prohibited from teaching indefinitely on 15 February 2024, with a two-year review period.

Background Information

Concerns about Hawley’s conduct built over two years. On 14 February 2020 he was given verbal guidance in relation to his one-to-one interactions with pupils. After a failure to pass on relevant safeguarding information and continued one-to-one interactions in contravention of that guidance, a formal meeting was held on 8 December 2020, following which he was given a written letter of expectation. On 7 June 2021 he received an additional letter of expectation after a further meeting. The concerns continued into 2022: on 24 February 2022 Pupil A’s parent contacted the school regarding a safeguarding issue, and a meeting about his conduct with Pupil A was held the following day. An investigation commenced on 14 March 2022; Hawley resigned from his post on 15 March 2022. The investigation concluded on 10 May 2022 and the referral to the TRA followed on 18 May 2022.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Allegations and findings. The findings in this section are those of a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel, which reported proving them on the balance of probabilities at a public hearing held virtually on 12–13 February 2024. Mr Hawley attended, denied the allegations and gave live evidence, admitting particular 1(b) and both limbs of allegation 2 through that evidence; no particular was left unproved.

The panel dealt with the six sub-particulars of allegation 1 together. It found that Hawley hugged Pupil A; frequently asked to meet with her on her own and/or after school; asked her about the breakup with her boyfriend; asked her if her boyfriend had been “her first” and/or if they had “done other stuff”; told her, “You’re making yourself a stranger to me but I want you to know that you’re still one of my favourites and I still care about you, give us a hug”; and offered to drive her home in his car. The primary evidence was the witness statement of Pupil A, who did not attend; the panel afforded it significant weight, finding it corroborated by CCTV and text message exhibits. It rejected his account that Pupil A had sought him out: the CCTV and messages appeared to show him beckoning her, and showed that after an initial meeting on a balcony in view of CCTV the pair went to a location with no cameras or witnesses while Pupil A was texting her mother to say she did not want to talk to him. The panel also noted he held no pastoral or tutor role in relation to Pupil A, and found his phrasing — such as “I was getting nothing back from her” — inappropriate.

Allegation 2 concerned his conduct after the warnings. The panel heard from Witness B, who found Hawley in his classroom with the door and the blinds closed in the presence of two female pupils, including Pupil A, outside of school hours — despite having been warned on multiple occasions about conduct of that nature. In his live evidence Hawley made direct admissions to both limbs: that he met and had one-to-one contact with Pupil A despite management advice that he should not, and that he did not notify the school of that contact despite being advised he must. He admitted he had contact with Pupil A that he did not pass on, and the letter of expectation made clear the notification obligation was not limited to safeguarding issues. With both allegations proved, the panel found the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, while finding none of the offence-related behaviours in the regulatory advice relevant.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel was particularly concerned that Hawley had been warned by school leadership on at least four occasions, that there had been two LADO referrals, and that Pupil A’s parents — members of the public — had felt the need to raise concerns with the school. It found it aggravating that Pupil A had been told not to have any contact with him, yet he continued to interact with her, placing her in a difficult position given the inherent authority teachers hold. It accepted he may have been motivated by a misguided sense of aiding pupils, and that his actions may have sprung partly from naivety, but found neither a compelling justification. It treated the absence of any previous disciplinary or regulatory investigations as a mitigating factor, but weighed against that his deliberate actions and absence of insight, and recommended an immediate prohibition order with a two-year review period.

Current Status

Hawley is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. His order carries a two-year review period: he may apply for it to be set aside, but not until 20 February 2026, two years from the date of the order, at the earliest. That is not an automatic right; if he applies, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition should be lifted, and without a successful application he remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. The panel commented that he had shown no insight but could take steps to aid his remediation, including appropriate training, should he wish to apply to rejoin the profession. He has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice of the order.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Hawley’s teaching career ended roughly two and a half years after it began, and the panel felt unable even to find a public interest in retaining him in the profession given how short his career was. The findings — inappropriate physical contact, personal and sexualised questioning, repeated one-to-one meetings in the face of warnings, and contact with a pupil concealed from the school — record a teacher who breached the basic boundaries of the role. The decision maker placed considerable weight on his deliberate continuation of contact with a pupil despite instructions from school leadership, and on the lack of any insight. Any return to teaching remains contingent on him first demonstrating developed insight and an absence of risk of repetition.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Samuel Hawley” — source