Stephane Lecurieux-Clerville

Introduction

Stephane Lecurieux-Clerville taught at John Wallis Church of England Academy in Ashford. Between September 2017 and June 2018, while Pupil A was at the school, he gave her his bank card and PIN, exchanged daily texts and Instagram messages, paid £43 for her to attend the school prom, created a shared Instagram account while on holiday, met her outside school, hugged her in a school office with his hands wandering under her top to her bra strap, exchanged letters as she left, gave her earrings, and posted a photograph of them together online. After she left in summer 2018 the relationship became sexual: meetings at a hotel, kissing, intimate photographs both ways, touching at her relatives’ house and at a school presentation evening, and ultimately sexual intercourse. He admitted every allegation. At his own request the case was decided without a hearing on a signed statement of agreed facts, and on 27 October 2021 decision maker Alan Meyrick banned him from teaching for life with no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration.

Background Information

The relationship’s texture came out in Pupil A’s witness statement and in interviews conducted during the school’s own disciplinary investigation, whose notes the panel read. Lecurieux-Clerville retrieved Pupil A’s mobile number from school documentation and texted her from January 2018, describing conversations he called “regular text message conversations of a platonic nature” — while Pupil A said they spoke every day including weekends. In April 2018, while abroad, he created an Instagram account as a private channel between them. He acknowledged in the disciplinary interview that he had started having feelings for Pupil A toward the end of that period but was “very conscious of his feelings given his position within the School”. The first out-of-school meeting was a pub on 22 June 2018; the letters and earrings were exchanged there; the prom payment and the “are we even at prom if I can’t buy my girl her favourite shot” remark followed in July. After she left for university the contact continued without a break — daily texts, summer meetings, a hotel suggestion in August 2018 answered twice with actual hotel visits, and sexual activity that both later confirmed.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Sexually motivated relationship with a pupil spanning her final school year and first year after leaving; hotel meetings, intimate photographs and sexual activity; admitted in full; banned for life with no review. The panel found the conduct calculated and motivated, and rejected his claim that his intentions began platonic.

Every sub-allegation was admitted, and the panel’s work was characterisation. It found the touching — hands under her top at the bra strap, at her relatives’ house, at a November 2018 presentation evening at the school — the kissing, the shared intimate photographs, and the sexual activity were inherently sexual, and that the letters, gifts and daily contact were in pursuit of a future relationship. In his written representations Lecurieux-Clerville argued his intentions at the outset were purely platonic; the panel found “no alternative, plausible reason” for conduct that included giving a pupil his bank card and PIN and paying for her prom. It took care to examine each sub-allegation individually rather than rely on cumulative effect, then found the whole course of the relationship sexually motivated — acted “in pursuit of sexual gratification and in pursuit of a future sexual relationship”. The panel noted the harm to Pupil A’s mental health as a finding it carried into sanction. The school’s disciplinary process recorded his apology to Pupil A and colleagues.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found his actions calculated and motivated, with no duress, and gave weight to his previously good history — references describing “a loyal and trustworthy colleague”, “hardworking and efficient”, with an “excellent relationship with students” and “outstanding skills at building excellent relationships with post 16 students”, the latter phrase reading differently in retrospect. But no references attesting to his character after the allegations were provided, and the panel found insufficient evidence that he had reflected on his actions or developed strategies to prevent recurrence, despite the apology and his account of steps taken. It found a strong public interest in protection of pupils given the inappropriate relationship both while Pupil A was a pupil and shortly after, while acknowledging some loss to the profession since no doubt had been cast on his teaching ability. Prohibition with immediate effect and no review period followed — the serious sexual misconduct factor, the professional position used to influence Pupil A, and the damage to her settling the question.

Current Status

Lecurieux-Clerville is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Meyrick adopted the no-review recommendation on 27 October 2021, citing the nature of the behaviour, the damage to Pupil A, and the lack of full insight and remorse, and decided he shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach — foreclosing even the ordinary set-aside route. The order took effect on service, with a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days. The determination is dated 22 October 2021. The decision records no criminal charge or conviction arising from the relationship; the regulatory findings rest on his own signed admissions and the school’s disciplinary evidence.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case maps the full arc the regulator treats as one continuing offence: a boundary erosion that began with school-sanctioned proximity — a charity coffee morning errand, texts about her welfare — and moved through gifts, private accounts and out-of-school meetings into sexual activity timed to her departure. The panel’s insistence on examining each admitted act individually, rather than letting accumulation do the work, shows the standard of care applied even to uncontentious cases; its finding that the communication channel “developed as a result of Mr Lecurieux-Clerville professional position and continued, with no break, when Pupil A left the School” is the reasoning that defeated any argument that post-school conduct was private life. The noted harm to Pupil A’s mental health also made the case about consequence, not just category. For Lecurieux-Clerville, the no-restoration order is the most severe tier available, closing the door his own apology at the school disciplinary stage could not reopen.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Stephane Lecurieux-Clerville” — source