Stuart Balfour

Introduction

Stuart Balfour is a former Director of Sports at St Edmund’s School in Hindhead, Surrey, whose case became a notable example of a teacher misconduct process that ended without a ban. In spring 2026, a professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) found that, while driving a school minibus carrying around thirteen pupils to a football match, he used his phone to send WhatsApp messages about a personal argument. The panel found the conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The case nevertheless concluded with published findings only: the decision maker acting for the Secretary of State concluded that a prohibition order was not proportionate, and Balfour was not banned from teaching.

Background Information

Balfour joined St Edmund’s School on 1 September 2013 and was promoted to Director of Sports in 2016. The panel heard that he was a well-regarded teacher and a respected PE leader who established the school’s GCSE PE course and mentored colleagues, although it found his contribution creditable rather than exceptional. On 21 November 2023 he was involved in an argument at the school with a colleague, referred to as Witness D. Later that day he drove a minibus of pupils to an away football match, exchanging WhatsApp messages about the argument while he drove. He was suspended on 27 November 2023, dismissed on 31 March 2024, and referred to the TRA by the headteacher on 10 September 2024. The decision records no criminal proceedings.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted the core allegations; findings published, no prohibition order. A TRA professional conduct panel sat from 18 to 20 March 2026 and reconvened on 23 April 2026 by way of a virtual hearing; the Secretary of State’s decision followed on 30 April 2026.

The allegations, set out in a Notice of Hearing dated 19 December 2025, were that Balfour drove a minibus with around 13 pupils under his care and used his phone to send one or more messages while the vehicle was in motion on or around 21 November 2023, and that this risked pupil safety because he was driving with reduced attention and was emotionally unfit to drive. He admitted the first allegation and the reduced-attention particular; he denied being emotionally unfit to drive.

The panel compared the timing of his WhatsApp messages with the minibus telematics log, which recorded the vehicle’s speed and location. Despite defence submissions that the two time sources had not been cross-referenced, the panel found the timing demonstrated a consistent overlap between periods of active driving and the sending of messages, including one message which read “I’m driving”. In his written statement and oral evidence Balfour described how he had dictated WhatsApp messages whilst driving. The phone, lacking a dashboard mount, sat in a drinks cup holder beside the steering wheel; replying required him to take a hand off the wheel and his focus off the road to tap the microphone icon. The telematics showed speeds of up to 62 mph on the A3 during the roughly 40-minute journey, while Balfour described being in his own “bubble” at the front of the vehicle as the pupils listened to music behind him. The school’s Code of Practice for Minibus Safety expressly prohibited mobile phone use while driving. The panel found allegation 1 and the reduced-attention allegation proved, while finding the claim that he was emotionally unfit to drive not proven: witnesses described him sounding matter of fact before he set off.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The consequences began inside the school. A colleague concerned about Balfour’s welfare drove to the match to relieve him of his duties, and the school suspended him within a week of the incident before dismissing him in March 2024. At the TRA hearing, the panel found the proven facts breached the Teachers’ Standards on safeguarding pupils’ wellbeing and involved breaches of the statutory guidance Keeping Children Safe in Education, calling his conduct a very serious failure and serious misconduct, though it did not consider the conduct found proven to amount to a serious driving matter. In mitigation, the panel accepted the incident was out of character, noted his remorse and reflective journal, his completion of Safer Driving at Work training, and his stated commitment to treating pupils as “precious cargo”, while also finding his insight incomplete, since he continued to message whilst driving after sending a message saying “I’m driving”. The panel concluded that prohibition was not necessary or proportionate: the incident was isolated, there was evidence of reflection and remediation, and it assessed the “risk of repetition to be very low”, recommending publication of the findings alone.

Current Status

Stuart Balfour is not banned from teaching. In a decision dated 30 April 2026, decision maker Marc Cavey, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, concluded that “a prohibition order is not proportionate” and not in the public interest, giving considerable weight to the panel’s view that the conduct was not a serious driving matter and that the risk of repetition was very low. The findings of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute stand and are published on GOV.UK, which the decision treats as a sufficient statement of concern. Because no prohibition order was made, there is no review period, no set-aside date, and no ban to appeal; the published findings remain on the public record permanently. Balfour’s employment at St Edmund’s School had already ended with his dismissal on 31 March 2024.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case cost Balfour his role as Director of Sports and, with it, a position he had held for over a decade. Character evidence before the panel described how the allegations had deeply affected his confidence and taken away a role that formed a significant part of his identity and purpose. The panel found no doubt had been cast on his abilities as an educator and identified a public interest in retaining him in the profession, which is why it recommended against prohibition. Whether he returns to teaching is not recorded; what persists is a permanent, searchable public record of the findings against his name.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Stuart Balfour” — source