Tyler Hickling

Introduction

Tyler Hickling was a teacher of ICT at The Brunts Academy in Nottinghamshire from 1 September 2015 until his conduct with a pupil came to light in June 2017. On 31 July 2019 he was convicted at Nottingham Crown Court of the offence recorded as meeting a girl under 16 years of age following grooming, and on 3 September 2019 Lincoln Crown Court sentenced him to nine months’ imprisonment suspended for twelve months, a ten-day rehabilitation activity requirement, 150 hours of unpaid work and a £140 victim surcharge. A Teaching Regulation Agency panel later found he had exchanged personal messages and photographs with a pupil, touched her leg in class and then deleted the evidence — and that the conduct was sexually motivated. He did not attend the regulatory hearing, and on 29 July 2022 decision maker Alan Meyrick banned him from teaching for life with no review and no right to apply for restoration.

Background Information

The concern surfaced on 16 June 2017, when a pupil told a teacher at the school that fellow pupil Pupil B had received text communication from Hickling. Witnesses who saw Pupil B’s phone that day found his number saved in her personal mobile with a chain of messages and numerous cancelled calls in both directions. The police investigation that followed produced the grooming conviction, and the sentencing remarks — which the panel later read alongside witness evidence — described communication that began on social media and conduct amounting to sexual communication with Pupil B. There had been an earlier warning: while on work experience at the Ripley Academy in 2013, before his teacher training, concerns had been raised about his contact with pupils and use of social media. In his response to the notice of referral Hickling admitted communicating with Pupil B by phone and social media, hugging her, the comment about not planning to do anything sexual until she was older, and deleting messages on his own phone and asking her to delete those on hers; he denied the rest.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Grooming conviction for meeting a girl under 16, plus proved pupil contact — messages, exchanged photographs, a witnessed leg touch and deleted evidence; banned for life with no review.

The panel worked through the allegations witness by witness. On the photographs, the sentencing remarks recorded that Hickling “sent more than one picture of yourself on your bed in boxer shorts” and received an image of Pupil B in a revealing sports outfit; a witness described seeing photographs of a male from the neck down in boxer shorts on her phone, and another pupil recounted being shown the same. On the touching, Pupil B told police Hickling put his hand on her leg over her trousers while seated next to her in his classroom, and a classmate described watching his arm reach onto her thigh. The comments were found proved in context, including that he would prefer Pupil B to wear a skirt. On concealment, the panel found he deleted the exchanged messages from his own phone and asked Pupil B to delete those on hers — conduct it found lacked integrity and was dishonest. The 2013 work-experience concerns were treated not as misconduct but as proof of a lack of insight.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found the whole course of conduct, as proved, was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated: the grooming conviction itself, and the sentencing court’s description of the conduct as sexual communication with Pupil B, anchored that finding. It noted that although the 2013 incident could not itself amount to unacceptable professional conduct — he had not yet begun teacher training — repeating the same pattern of social-media contact with a pupil despite having been warned years earlier showed the lack of insight directly. Hickling did not attend the hearing and was not represented; the panel proceeded in his voluntary absence and tested the evidence of three witnesses called against him. It found the conduct fell significantly short of the standards expected, breached the safeguarding framework in force at the time, and involved direct contravention of the Teachers’ Standards and school policies. The panel recommended prohibition with no review period.

Current Status

Meyrick, deciding on 29 July 2022, went beyond the panel’s recommendation in one respect only: he agreed no review period was appropriate and added that Hickling shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The factors he cited were the nature of the misconduct and the lack of full insight. The sentencing remarks had acknowledged that overt sexual contact was not present in this case, and the panel still concluded the offence was of such seriousness that public confidence would be seriously undermined if Hickling were permitted to return to teaching. He is prohibited from teaching indefinitely, cannot work in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England, and has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice. The suspended sentence’s requirements expired in 2020, but the sex offender registration obligations attached to the conviction run for their own statutory period.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The case shows how a 2013 warning followed a teacher across jobs and years: the Ripley Academy concerns did not found any allegation on their own, but they converted the 2017 conduct from an error of judgment into evidence of a settled pattern. They also set the floor for the sanction: the panel found the 2013-era pattern amounted to “the lack of insight, shown in again communicating with a pupil via social media despite the previous warning and further safeguarding training received”, falling below the standards expected of a teacher. For The Brunts Academy, the disclosure came from a pupil rather than from monitoring, underlining how much depends on children reporting what they see on each other’s phones. For Hickling, the combination of a grooming conviction, registration requirements and a lifetime prohibition with no restoration closes teaching and, in practice, every regulated child-facing occupation in England.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Tyler Hickling” — source