Former Clitheroe Royal Grammar School teacher banned from classroom after kissing pupil on overnight stay
A 55-year-old teacher who kissed a pupil has been banned from the classroom.
A hearing by the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) decided that Simon Mumford was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and had brought the profession into disrepute while employed as the head of physics at Clitheroe Royal Grammar School.
A hearing was called after the Mr Mumford was suspended from the school in 2023. It was alleged that between June 18 and 19 2021, he organised and went on an overnight camping trip to Priests Hole Cave with Pupil A which was not authorised by the school. During this period, Mr Mumford allegedly engaged in out of hours contact, inappropriate discussions and inappropriate contact with Pupil including kissing her and telling her he loved her. On February 8, 2023, the school received disclosure from Pupil A and Mr Mumford was suspended. The matter was referred to the TRA on July 14, 2023.
Unauthorised trip
Mr Mumford’s evidence was that the trip was discussed with and authorised by Pupil A’s parents, who felt that the trip would benefit her. Mr Mumford stated that Pupil A was a “very bright and inquisitive child who enjoyed learning but… on occasion, issues at home would become a distraction and source of anxiety”.
The panel considered that, under no circumstances, should Mr Mumford have arranged a personal camping trip outside of the school setting. A report states: “In doing so, Mr Mumford had encouraged a relationship which went beyond a professional teacher and pupil relationship, therefore failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries.”
Out of hours contact
Mr Mumford admitted that he had contact with Pupil A outside of school hours, but told the hearing that the role of a teacher is not a “9am – 5pm type of job”, and that the role involves conversations with pupils, parents and colleagues as and when needed to provide educational and broader pastoral support. Mr Mumford stated that it was in this context he had contact with pupils he taught, including Pupil A. Mr Mumford denied that he specifically encouraged Pupil A to stay after lessons to speak to him on a “one-to-one basis”.
Inappropriate physical contact
The hearing also heard that on or around June 18-19, Mr Mumford kissed Pupil A on her cheek and/or face on one or more occasion and leaned over her body and whispered into her ear “I love you”. The panel was provided with a copy of an entry from Pupil A’s personal diaries which stated: “He told me he loved me and kissed my cheek. It’s so much so quickly”.
Pupil A’s evidence was that her understanding was that this was done in a “fatherly” manner, rather than romantically. In his written evidence, Mr Mumford denied kissing Pupil A. However, in his oral evidence, Mr Mumford stated that he did not recall kissing Pupil A on the cheek, but stated that, if he did so, it would have been more like a parental “peck”. The panel considered the evidence presented to it and found that, on the balance of probabilities, it was more likely than not that Mr Mumford kissed Pupil A on the cheek on more than one occasion. The panel found that, irrespective of whether the kiss was given in a fatherly or paternal manner, such physical contact between a teacher and a pupil would be inappropriate in all circumstances.
The panel also considered that placing his arms around the girl was proven and Mr Mumford had failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries by engaging in inappropriate discussions.
Allegations not proven
What was not proven was that the behaviour was of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. Allegations of touching the girls leg were not proven, as was the allegation of Mr Mumford sleeping next to or inbetween Pupil A and another, unnamed individual.
What the panel concluded
The report states: “The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Mumford amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel considered that Mr Mumford’s actions in failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries were particularly serious.”
It adds that “Mr Mumford had failed to persuade the panel that he fully understood the importance of his safeguarding obligations moving forward. As such, the panel was concerned that there may be a risk of repetition.”
Decision maker Marc Cavey decided that Mr Mumford will be prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until September 12, 2026 at the earliest.
What does the school say?
A spokesman for Clitheroe Royal Grammar School said: ‘As a school, safeguarding is our top priority and we treat all reports very seriously and with the utmost rigour, in line with our robust policies and procedures. After the teacher’s dismissal we worked closely and supportively with the TRA and DBS to enable an effective conclusion to the case.”