Education
Teacher at £56,000-a-year boarding school banned for failing to disclose fiancé’s sex convictions
Key Points
Teacher at £56,000-a-year boarding school banned for failing to disclose fiancé’s sex convictions Thomas Ridgway failed to tell his bosses that he was engaged to a registered child sex offender - Bookmark A photography teacher at a £56,000-a-year boarding school has been barred from the profession after failing to disclose that he was engaged to a registered child sex offender. Thomas Ridgway did not inform bosses at Heathfield School in Ascot, Berkshire, that his partner had been convicted...
Teacher at £56,000-a-year boarding school banned for failing to disclose fiancé’s sex convictions
Thomas Ridgway failed to tell his bosses that he was engaged to a registered child sex offender
- Bookmark
A photography teacher at a £56,000-a-year boarding school has been barred from the profession after failing to disclose that he was engaged to a registered child sex offender.
Thomas Ridgway did not inform bosses at Heathfield School in Ascot, Berkshire, that his partner had been convicted in 2023 on 10 counts of sexual activity with a minor.
A Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel found that the 31-year-old demonstrated no "regret" or "remorse" regarding the non-disclosure, observing that: "The focus…was on himself."
Although Mr Ridgway denied deliberately withholding the information, minutes from school meetings reviewed by the TRA panel recorded him as previously stating "I have known since the start" and "we have always been open about things".
The tribunal was told that his partner, who will remain on the sex offenders' register for life, was convicted on 19 June 2023 and received an unspecified prison sentence on December 6 that year.
The school was only made aware of the convictions on 15 December 2023 after receiving an email from a member of the public citing "sexual assault against three boys".
Mr Ridgway, who was employed at the all-girls private school between September 2023 and February 2024, met with management "straight away" and "repeatedly apologised".
He stated that a relative of his partner, who had offered support during the situation, advised him not to notify the school.
In a later meeting with school officials on 12 January 2024, Mr Ridgway said: "I was not aware of all the ins and outs, but I was aware of things that had occurred previously."
He was suspended on 30 January 2024 and formally resigned his position on 19 February 2024.
He informed the panel that he was unaware of the specific allegations against his fiancé, beyond knowing they were "very serious".
He claimed that his partner never permitted him to attend police interviews, solicitor appointments, or court hearings.
In his own evidence, Mr Ridgway’s partner confirmed he never "fully discussed the situation" with him, telling him only that "my solicitor was now on the case".
The tribunal accepted that Mr Ridgway did not set out with a deliberate intention to deceive, but concluded his silence was "naïve" and represented a "derogation of duty".
Addressing inconsistencies in his account, the panel stated: "The panel considered that, in these proceedings, Mr Ridgway had sought to downplay what he knew.
"The panel concluded that it was more likely than not that he had a greater knowledge of events than he now sought to portray.
"Not least, he was full and candid in his admissions to the School in December 2023 and January 2024, which he now sought to resile from by providing a particular narrative in these proceedings."
It added: "(the panel) was also satisfied that at some point after December 6 2023, he was aware of the full circumstances of the offences, including that they involved sexual offences against children, and did not disclose those details to the school."
The panel noted that Mr Ridgway, who opted not to give evidence in his defense, was "deeply affected" by his partner’s imprisonment.
While the panel did not initially suggest an indefinite ban, this was overruled by a senior TRA official acting on behalf of the Education Secretary, who decided a prohibition order was "proportionate" and in the "public interest".
The official noted: "This is because there remains a risk of repetition of the conduct, for which Mr Ridgway has (shown) little evidence of insight and remorse, and the safeguarding impact future repetitions may have on pupils."
Mr Ridgway is now banned indefinitely from teaching in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation, or children’s home in England.