Maldon: former Plume Academy vice principal given teaching ban

Former Plume Academy vice principal Nigel Brunt, 53, will never be able to work in the profession again after the Teaching Regulation Agency heard he had sent as many as 60,000 messages to the student. 

Mr Brunt was employed at the school between from 2001 to 2020, becoming vice principal in 2013. 

In 2020, it is claimed Mr Brunt, who was a designated person for child protection, developed an inappropriate relationship and failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with a student.

Location - Plume Academy (Image: Google Maps)

On March 30, 2020, Essex Police was informed by the academy a serious allegations had been made against Mr Brunt by a pupil. 

The hearing was told Mr Brunt had obtained the pupil's phone number and had sent her messages telling her she was "beautiful" and "amazing".

It was also told Mr Brunt made suggestions of a sexual nature in his messages but he claimed they were “misplaced humour”.

According to the documents he also “displayed controlling and persuasive behaviour” towards the pupil.

In one message he asked her "promise not to tell your mum”. 

The hearing was also told the pupil had been to visit Mr Brunt at his smallholding on multiple occasions. 

The report said: "Whilst the panel considered it was reasonable to have students from the academy at Mr Brunt’s smallholding in certain contexts, such as within a group or with their family, they recognised that Mr Brunt had pushed the boundaries of what was reasonable as it was more probable than not, that he repeatedly had Pupil A at his smallholding by herself."

The police had copies of around 2,400 messages and this was a “snapshot” of “around 60,000” messages that had been exchanged been the former teacher and Pupil A.

The panel acknowledged that Mr Brunt regretted his actions as he stated he is “deeply ashamed” in his written evidence that was provided to the panel.

But it added: "However, the panel found that Mr Brunt had shown limited insight and remorse in respect of the impact of his conduct on Pupil A or her family."

The report said: "Based on the evidence available, the panel finds that Mr Brunt’s actions were deliberate and there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Brunt was acting under extreme duress.

"As far as the panel is aware from Mr Brunt, he had contributed to the education sector and had previously good history. The panel considered the police statement of Pupil A’s mother which stated that Mr Brunt was previously a 'brilliant help'."

Mr Brunt is 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 2029, five years from the date of this order at the earliest.