Teacher at Winchester school who admitted to meeting child in their bedroom avoids being struck off

Mark Sills is alleged to have engaged in several inappropriate incidents with a pupil (Pupil A) aged between eight and nine. This included meeting the child alone several times, allowing them to sit on his knee, cuddling them, and leaving notes in their maths book such as ‘see you at lunchtime’.

Mr Sills was also accused of visiting the pupil’s home, joining them in their bedroom and locking the door, referring to their time together as 'the most precious and beautiful I have spent on this earth' in a letter, and attending their swimming lessons and watching them.

SEE ALSO: Portsmouth city centre roads closed off after dead man found on the street

Certain conduct continued after the teacher agreed with the parents not to spend time with their child alone, or outside school.

The evidence was scrutinised in a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel. Mr Sills taught the pupil at Western Church of England Primary School, in Browning Drive, Winchester in the 1990s.

The child reported his behaviour to the police in 2018, with officers referring the case to the TRA.

In the report, decision maker Alan Meyrick said: ‘The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Sills amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession.’

The teacher, with 26 years in the profession, admitted to visiting the pupil out of school, asking them to sit on their knee, writing and leaving them notes, visiting the child’s home, writing a letter to the pupil’s parents referring to his time spent with the pupil as ‘the most precious and beautiful I have spent on this earth', attending their swimming lessons and offering them a lift in his car on their own.

He also admitted to entering the child’s bedroom, but not locking it. Mr Sills denied writing the parents a letter which said it was a 'wonderful pleasure' when being in the presence of the pupil, giving them a lifts, cuddling them while alone, giving them gifts and telling their parents he ‘missed’ the pupil at a swimming lesson. He said his conduct was not of a sexual nature.

Mr Sill’s conduct was deemed to be inappropriate. Mr Meyrick said: ‘Mr Sills' actions towards Pupil A were a serious misjudgement and led to the breakdown of an appropriate teacher-pupil relationship.

‘The boundaries of the relationship between a pupil and teacher are of a fundamental importance and are well established. This was recognised by teachers at the time from whom the panel heard evidence and accords with the panel's understanding of the profession at that time.

‘Whilst Mr Sills did not recognise it at time, he has since reflected and recognised that his actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. Mr Sills' actions overstepped that fundamental boundary by a wide mark.

‘He accepted in his evidence that the relationship became more about his needs than those of Pupil A.’ Mr Meyrick added Mr Sills did not sense discomfort Pupil A felt, or recognised the potential harm of his actions.

‘It was plain to the panel that a 26-year-old teacher could not have a friendship with an eight-year-old pupil on an equal footing, as purported by Mr Sills. There was an evident moral blameworthiness that lay with Mr Sills in this respect,’ Mr Meyrick added.

In the report, Mr Sills explained that once his behaviour had been pointed out to him by his headteacher, it ceased immediately, and there were no other incidents in the following 26-year career.

After consideration, and a 128-page bundle provided by Mr Sills with 28 character references – of which his conduct and empathetic nature were spoken highly of – the decision was made not to ban him from teaching.

Mr Meyrick said: ‘He had shown genuine remorse about his behaviour since becoming aware of its considerable and long-term impact on Pupil A.

SEE ALSO: Old Debenhams store in Portsmouth could be transformed into the tallest skyscraper in the city

‘In his evidence Mr Sills remarked that he was mortified and devastated to learn of the difficulties Pupil A had experienced that they attributed to this episode.

‘The panel considered that Mr Sills' misconduct, whilst serious, was at the lesser end of the spectrum of misconduct.

‘The panel considered that the public interest elements in maintaining public confidence and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct, when balanced with his contributions to education over the years, did not require the prohibition of Mr Sills from teaching.

‘A prohibition order would prevent Mr Sills from teaching and would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force.’