Waterlooville teacher banned for life over lewd comments

PE instructor Luke Farrant, 27, had already been sacked from his job at Jubilee School in Waterlooville.

A Teaching Regulation Agency hearing found him guilty of sexually motivated 'unacceptable professional conduct' which could bring the teaching profession into disrepute.

The hearing found he sent a lewd message to a colleague via Snapchat.

TRA decision maker Alan Meyrick said: 'In my judgement the lack of insight means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this risks the future well being of colleagues.'

Farrant, who had joined the school in January 2016 and left in December that year, had denied the allegations.

Mr Meyrick, said that, among other things, in view of the Mr Farrant's '˜sexual misconduct' and lack of insight and remorse a life-time ban is proportionate.

He said it was in the public interest. In some cases teachers are banned but the way is left open for them to seek to have the ban lifted after a set number of years.

The panel's findings say that they considered that '˜the only proper inference to be drawn from such facts was that Mr Farrant's behaviour was sexually motivated.'

As he struck Mr Farrant off Mr Meyrick said: '˜The panel has made serious findings of conduct which was sexually motivated.'

It is open to Mr Farrant to mount a High Court challenge to he findings.

The decision papers listing the reasons to strike off Mr Farrant run to just short of 7,000 words.

Mr Meyrick added: '˜This means that Mr Farrant is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children's home in England.

'˜Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Farrant shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.

'˜This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher.'

Mr Farrant claimed witnesses had colluded together but the panel found no collusion had taken place.

In the ruling, Mr Meyrick added: '˜Mr Farrant had denied all of the allegations and had failed to acknowledge any aspect of his behaviour or the consequences of it, other than to accept that he had been "overly flirty" and he apologised for any upset that he had caused.

'˜The result of Mr Farrant's approach was that the panel concluded that he had neither any true insight into, nor remorse for, his behaviour which had been deliberate and there was no suggestion that he was acting under duress.'