Mr Paul Brown

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themself. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Paul Brown

Teacher reference number: 9441791

Teacher's date of birth: 2 November 1971

Location teacher worked: Hampshire, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 7 to 19 November 2025

Outcome type: prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Paul Brown, formerly employed in Hampshire, South East England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email [email protected]

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Paul Brown: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 18 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Paul Brown Teacher ref number: 9441791 Teacher date of birth: 2 November 1971 TRA reference: 22333 Date of determination: 19 November 2025 Former employer: Bransgore Church of England Primary School, Bransgore Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 to 19 November 2025 way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Paul Brown. The panel members were Miss Sue Davies (lay panellist – in the chair), Mr Gamel Byles (teacher panellist) and Mrs Monique Clark (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Alex Mullen of Counsel instructed by Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Brown was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public save those parts which were heard in private and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of hearing dated 15 May 2025. It was alleged that Mr Brown was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working as the headteacher at Bransgore Church of England School (the ‘School’): 1. Between June 2023 and July 2023, he engaged in inappropriate communications with Person A, in which he: a) Accessed the adult social networking site ‘Fetlife’ and/or sent messages on ‘Fetlife’ to Person A during School hours; b) Discussed previously sexually assaulting a child and/or children; and/or c) Discussed arranging to meet with Person A’s child and/or children with a view to sexual activity taking place 2. He did not report Person A’s profile to ‘Fetlife’ and/or the police on becoming aware that a child and/or children may be at risk of sexual abuse. 3. His conduct at paragraphs 1(a) and/or 1(b) and/or 1(c) was sexual and/or sexually motivated. Mr Brown admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2 and 3 but on the caveated basis set out in the response to notice of hearing, signed by Mr Brown on 10 June 2025. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 5 to 6 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 7 to 18 Section 3: TRA witness statements – pages 19 to 26 Section 4: TRA documents – pages 27 to 529 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 530 to 566 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 5 In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the 2020 Procedures . Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr Brown commenced employment at Bransgore Church of England School (‘the School’) on 1 September 2013. Between June 2023 and July 2023 Mr Brown allegedly engaged in conversations with Person A via an adult networking site called ‘Fetlife’ and allegedly discussed previously assaulting a child/children and arranging to meet Person A’s child/children with a view to sexual activity taking place. On 18 July 2023 Mr Brown was arrested but he was not charged with any offence. A referral was made to the TRA on 20 April 2024. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows. In respect of all the allegations, the panel carefully considered the oral and written witness evidence and exhibits. The panel scrutinised the entire bundle including the TRA’s documents concerning the investigations and the meetings of the School and of the various authorities, including the Local Authority Designated Officer (“LADO”) and the police, surrounding these allegations. The panel noted that the evidence within many of these documents was hearsay but considered that the evidence was relevant and formed part of the official investigations. The panel therefore admitted the hearsay evidence after careful consideration in each case but noted that the evidence should be considered carefully and cautiously, including in relation to the appropriate amount of weight to be placed on it. 6 The panel carefully considered the documents and correspondence of Mr Brown in the bundle including, without limitation, his initial response to the notice of hearing, his letter to the panel dated 24 October 2025 regarding his non-attendance and 2 undated documents entitled “Submission for consideration by TRA panel” and “Overview of factors leading to the incident that brought about the misconduct allegations against me” in its consideration of all allegations. The panel noted that these documents were hearsay, but as they represented the key evidence provided by Mr Brown, the panel decided that it was in the interests of justice that the evidence be admitted and considered. The panel was conscious that Mr Brown would not be cross examined in relation to this evidence or in relation to the other evidence in the bundle. The panel was also conscious that Mr Brown had chosen to absent himself from proceedings and from the opportunity to put his evidence forward in response to the allegations. The panel noted that Mr Brown had admitted to large parts of the allegations facing him but as some elements of those allegations were denied or not fully admitted it proceeded on the basis that this was a fully disputed hearing and determined that it would carefully consider all the evidence before it. The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between June 2023 and July 2023, you engaged in inappropriate communications with Person A, in which you: a) Accessed the adult social networking site ‘Fetlife’ and/or sent messages on ‘Fetlife’ to Person A during School hours; b) Discussed previously sexually assaulting a child and/or children; and/or c) Discussed arranging to meet with Person A’s child and/or children with a view to sexual activity taking place The panel noted that Mr Brown admitted allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) in his response to the notice of hearing though provided some contextual submissions and caveats both there and within his later written submissions. Notwithstanding this, the panel considered all the evidence in front of it and reached a determination based on the evidence. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness A. Witness A stated that on 18 July 2023 she was contacted by the LADO who informed her that Mr Brown had been arrested for offences relating to an online attempt to arrange for the sexual abuse of children. 7 Witness A informed the panel that Mr Brown was suspended from his role. Witness A was informed on 8 December 2023 that the police would not be taking any further action against Mr Brown. Witness A informed the panel that in her capacity as [REDACTED] she commenced an internal investigation into Mr Brown's conduct on 7 December 2023. Witness A stated that on 31 January 2024 she interviewed Mr Brown, and he confirmed he had accessed the site Fetlife during working hours, in his car, away from the School site. The panel noted that Fetlife was an adult social networking site for people interested in BDSM (bondage and discipline, dominance and submission, sadism and masochism), fetishism and kink. Witness A informed the panel that Mr Brown had mentioned that he had suffered sexual abuse as a child and stated that he described activity in the third-person with the online profile, rather than describing himself as participating in the sexual abuse of children. She stated that Mr Brown informed her that his use of the site was anonymous. The panel carefully considered the notes of a disciplinary investigation meeting of Wednesday 31 January 2024 where Mr Brown was interviewed. The panel placed significant weight on this document as setting out Mr Brown’s response to these factual matters in his investigation response to the School. The panel noted that within this meeting Mr Brown acknowledged that he had engaged in a conversation with a person (“Person A”) on Fetlife. Mr Brown emphasised that it was a “site for people with fetishes and an adult network for people with interests” but that it was not “porn” and it was legal. Mr Brown said that his use of the site was completely anonymous and that he did not use his own name. Mr Brown stated that he would generally access the site at night but that sometimes he would access it in the car if he had driven somewhere for a meeting or stopped for lunch but would not do so on school premises or using school resources. Mr Brown explained in this meeting that he was unknowingly speaking to an undercover police officer and that they spoke about abuse and a shared experience when he was a child. Mr Brown recalls that he blocked the website on a Thursday morning when he was at an AI round table in Birmingham messaging Person A saying he did not want to talk anymore and that it was not appropriate. He indicated that he later re-engaged with the communication thinking that could be friends again but that he then again blocked the account at 3:15 AM on the following