What happened
A teacher at a primary school in County Durham moved into its enhanced mainstream provision in April 2018, his “Team Teach” restraint training current. On 29 October a letter reminded him of the two-staff principle for restrictive physical intervention.
On 6 November he held a pupil by the wrist or forearm. He said he used an open-handed hold, a “caring C”, which became briefly more restrictive to stop the pupil falling into a fence. The colleague watching said there was no fence risk, that the pupil could not remove themselves and was in distress, and asked him to let go.
On 12 November he grabbed another pupil’s wrist and held it, describing the same hold. The pupil, distressed, could not get away. The panel found it served only to secure compliance with his instruction to speak to her. A third allegation, on 7 November, was not proved.
The outcome
The panel sat from 28 February to 2 March 2023. It found both holds inappropriate and that he had failed to act within the statutory framework of a teacher’s professional duties. The Teachers’ Standards require proper regard for a school’s policies; he had shown none. That was unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute.
The mitigation was real: no intention to harm, no evidence of injury, a good record, actions short and at the lower end. Against it stood the letter of 29 October, which gave him a chance to correct his practice. He was prohibited indefinitely on 7 March 2023, able to apply to set the order aside from 13 March 2025.
What went wrong
Each hold was defended by naming its technique. An open-handed diversion, he said, twice. The panel’s answer on 12 November was that a pupil who could not get away had not been held with an open hand.
Purpose went unexamined until the panel examined it. That hold secured compliance with an instruction, and school policy made restraint for that purpose inappropriate in itself, so how firm it was never arose.
Training stood in for control: he was trained and current, and had the letter of 29 October to reflect on. A colleague asking him to stop was the only thing that ended the first hold.
What it teaches
Wrist and forearm holds are the smallest unit of restraint there is. Below them is nothing, which makes the line between guiding a pupil and holding one the whole argument. That line is whether the pupil can leave, not the shape of the hand.
Ask what the hold is for while it is happening. Keeping a pupil from falling is one thing. Making a pupil speak to a colleague is not a safety purpose at all. Staff who can say which they are doing can defend it.
Severity does not set the sanction. Short, harmless, unintended, well-referenced, and still a prohibition, because the breach was clear and avoidable.
Questions for the room
- Would a two-second wrist hold on a distressed pupil appear in your records? What else of that size is missing?
- Which holds in your school are for safety, and which are for compliance?
- If a colleague asked you to let go of a pupil today, would that be written down, and read?
Evidence and limits
Confidence: confirmed. The prohibition order of 7 March 2023 and the page carrying it were read in full on 7 November 2026, both 200. Nothing rests on regional press: ChronicleLive’s report returns 403 and was not read.
The pupils appear as letters only, and the school is withheld: a named primary school with a small provision, these dates and three pupils would identify them locally. The teacher is named because the published determination names him.
Our positive handling training for schools works on that line.
Sources
- Teaching Regulation Agency, 14 March 2023 · https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teacher-misconduct-panel-outcome-mr-christopher-green
- Prohibition order, Teaching Regulation Agency, 7 March 2023 · https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/64104002e90e076ccd135446/_OFFICIAL_SENSITIVE__Green_Christopher_SoS_decision_redacted.pdf
Reviewed 7 November 2026.