A North East maths teacher who was found naked in a Hebburn street has been found guilty of misconduct at a Teaching Regulation Agency hearing, with a potential teaching ban now being considered
A maths teacher who claimed to be a naturist was spotted going on a naked stroll by a river. Andrew Peacock, formerly deputy head of department at Hetton Academy, failed to attend a public disciplinary hearing where he faced accusations of tarnishing the profession’s reputation following a naked stroll towards the River Tyne.
He faced four charges at a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) hearing. This followed his acceptance of a police caution for a public order offence – specifically causing harassment, alarm or distress – the tribunal heard.
Mr Peacock admitted that he was discovered starkers in a residential area – Ellison Street in Hebburn – by two members of the public who reported this to the police. The tribunal was told that these individuals informed the police that Mr Peacock had then hopped into his parked car and “driven up and down” the street, prompting them to seek cover.
During the virtual hearing on Thursday February 5, TRA case presenter Leah Redden presented the allegations. These included him being nude in public on November 11, 2023, his arrest without notifying anyone at the school, his conduct constituting a criminal offence for which he accepted a caution, and his dishonest behaviour.
The tribunal panel ruled each charge proven, and determined that Mr Peacock’s behaviour amounted to misconduct that could potentially damage the profession’s reputation. The panel will now consider whether to advise the Secretary of State for Education to impose a teaching prohibition, reports Chronicle Live.
Throughout the proceedings, Ms Redden explained to the panel that Mr Peacock had served as deputy head of mathematics at Hetton Academy between 2022 and 2024, stepping down before facing an internal disciplinary process. He had worked at the institution since 2013.
Ms Redden continued: “He was arrested [over his] nakedness in a public place on November 11, 2023. The circumstances were he was spotted by two members of the public, seeing he was naked in a residential area.”
She went on to say: “It is [Mr Peacock’s] position that he is a naturist and had been delivering food in the local area before deciding to go for a walk by the river.”
According to testimony heard by the panel, the educator maintained he had been outside for under a minute – heading back to his vehicle upon hearing someone speak.
Hetton Academy Principal Vicky Pinkney provided testimony, informing the panel that Mr Peacock had failed to notify her of his arrest over more than a week.
The school only discovered this when the local authority designated officer (LADO) made contact with her.
At that point Mr Peacock was summoned to a meeting and disciplinary proceedings commenced.
Ms Pinkney informed the panel that she harboured serious concerns regarding the impact of Mr Peacock’s conduct.
She stated: “He seemed to think that he was a naturist and it didn’t affect school and that it was acceptable for him to be out and about without his clothes on. I was quite shocked – as I did think it affects school.”
She informed the panel she wasn’t aware of any school pupils residing in the relevant Hebburn area – though a staff member did live close by, and she knew some pupils travelled to school by taxi from more distant locations.
The headteacher added that there had been no prior concerns regarding Mr Peacock, although he had experienced periods of absence from school.
When questioned about his teaching standards, he added: “He was an okay teacher, results were not always where perhaps they should have been but we were working to develop that.”
In her concluding remarks for the TRA, Ms Redden referenced the testimony of a witness who observed an unclothed Mr Peacock.
She stated: “She felt panicked and terrified. She did not know what he was planning on doing. He made her think twice about being out at night.”
Ms Redden highlighted that numerous residential properties overlooked the street and observed: “It is clear that he was in a residential area and did not park as close to the river as he possibly could have. He would have been aware that to get to the river he would have had to walk past those houses.”
She continued that whilst Mr Peacock maintains his behaviour was a “simple act of naturism” the TRA believes “it was rather an act which constituted a criminal offence, corroborated by witnesses, who felt they had to hide, fearing they were followed”.
The tribunal panel – comprising Carl Lygo, Suhel Ahmed and Beverley Williams – upheld all four allegations. When delivering the verdict, Mr Lygo outlined the evidence presented to the panel, including witness statements from the police investigation and disciplinary hearing, alongside Mr Peacock’s recorded police interview.
Mr Lygo referenced the police witness statements, noting: “The police report states that at the time Mr Peacock was stopped in his car, [the officer] noticed Mr Peacock had a grey hoody placed over his lap and his bare legs were showing.”
Mr Lygo summarised that whilst Mr Peacock had admitted to being unclothed, he had insisted he had “taken reasonable steps” to avoid detection. The panel chair also revealed that in his testimony to both the TRA and the school disciplinary hearing, Mr Peacock had argued he accepted the police caution to “avoid attracting media attention” and to safeguard the school’s reputation.
The teacher had insisted he wasn’t aware he needed to inform his school about the arrest – but the panel rejected this excuse.
Mr Lygo revealed that during Mr Peacock’s police interview, he had denied trying to be spotted, intending to frighten anyone, or seeking sexual gratification.
Addressing the allegation that Mr Peacock failed to notify his bosses about the arrest, Mr Lygo went on, stating: “As an experienced teacher, Mr Peacock would have been familiar with his responsibilities around safeguarding.”
Mr Lygo added: “His behaviour amounted to misconduct and fell significantly short of the standards expected from the profession. He was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct.”