ANDREW TETLEY FROM LEYLAND ESCAPES JAIL AFTER AFFAIR WITH 15-YEAR-OLD PUPIL IN LANCASHIRE

In January 2015, a serious case involving a teaching assistant from Leyland, Lancashire, drew significant attention to issues of trust and misconduct within educational institutions. The individual, Andrew Tetley, aged 28, found himself at the center of a legal case after it was revealed that he had engaged in an inappropriate relationship with a 15-year-old girl who was a pupil at the school where he worked.

Although Tetley did not engage in sexual intercourse with the girl, evidence presented in Preston Crown Court indicated that their interactions included kissing and the exchange of explicit photographs. The court was informed that Tetley had also touched the girl’s breast during their encounters, raising serious concerns about the nature of their relationship and his conduct as a person in a position of trust.

Despite having access to official records that would have confirmed her age, Tetley claimed he believed the girl was 16. This assertion was a key factor in the court’s decision, as it influenced the sentencing. He admitted to engaging in sexual activity with a minor in a position of trust, but the court ultimately handed down a six-month jail sentence, which was suspended for two years. Judge Andrew Woolman explained that the sentence was suspended because the circumstances of the case did not warrant immediate imprisonment, and he also ruled that Tetley would not be required to sign the sex offender register. However, he was explicitly banned from working with children in the future.

The case came to light after concerns were raised by the school’s assistant headteacher, who heard rumors of a sexual relationship between Tetley and the pupil. The assistant headteacher took action by speaking to the girl, and her phone was confiscated for examination. During this review, it was discovered that Tetley’s mobile number was stored in her contacts under the name “Andy.”

The girl explained that her initial contact with Tetley was made through Instagram, where they began communicating. She stated that their conversations initially revolved around her career prospects, but she later admitted to developing a sexual attraction to him, citing his good looks as a factor. Both acknowledged that their meetings were wrong and attempted to cease contact, but the relationship persisted.

According to the prosecution, the girl was just weeks away from her 16th birthday when they met in person on two occasions over a three-month period. These meetings included visits to a pub, with the girl being the one to initiate both encounters. During these meetings, they talked, kissed, and on one occasion, Tetley touched her breast. The girl described the kissing as proper, involving tongues, and expressed that she was comfortable with what happened.

Further evidence revealed that the pair exchanged explicit messages discussing sexual fantasies and potential sexual activity. The girl sent Tetley photographs of her upper body, both naked and in underwear, while he responded with pictures of his upper body. Both parties later recognized the wrongfulness of their actions and attempted to end the relationship. It was noted that Tetley had access to her registration forms and could have verified her age if he had chosen to do so.

Defense lawyer David Traynor argued that Tetley believed the girl was 16 and emphasized that the contact was initiated by her, not him. He pointed out that there was no coercion involved and that Tetley had ended the relationship prior to his arrest. Traynor also highlighted the impact of the case on Tetley’s career, noting that he had lost his job and reputation, which would make future employment difficult.

Judge Woolman addressed the court, stating that although the girl was under 16, Tetley, as a teacher’s assistant, was in a position of trust and should have exercised better judgment. The judge emphasized that Tetley should have refused to meet her and ended the contact immediately. The judge acknowledged that the meetings involved kissing and, on one occasion, more intimate contact, but noted that no full sexual activity took place. The judge also accepted Tetley’s claim that he believed the girl was 16, despite having the means to verify her age.

In conclusion, the judge sentenced Tetley to a suspended jail term, recognizing that he was a bright young man who had made a serious mistake that could jeopardize his future. The court also ordered him to pay a victim surcharge and barred him from working with children moving forward. The case served as a stark reminder of the importance of safeguarding and the responsibilities held by those in trusted positions within educational settings.