Declan Sealy
Introduction
Declan Sealy is a former mathematics teacher at Dixons Brooklands Academy in Manchester who was prohibited from teaching indefinitely by the Secretary of State for Education in February 2026 — despite a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) professional conduct panel recommending that no ban be imposed at all. His case stems from convictions for drunken violence outside school, and it stands out because the government’s decision maker explicitly disagreed with the panel’s conclusion that publishing its findings alone was enough.
Background Information
Sealy (teacher ref 0253260, TRA ref 24943) was born on 30 April 1980 and joined Dixons Brooklands Academy as a mathematics teacher on 1 December 2020. He had an “unblemished career of over 20 years” in teaching, with no previous disciplinary proceedings or warnings, and was regarded as especially effective with less able and less confident pupils in areas of social deprivation. A reference before the panel described him as an “exceptional teacher” with “unwavering positivity”.
There were warning signs. Sealy had received two police cautions, in 2003 and 2007, which he described as for “similar things involving alcohol and getting into an argument” — cautions he had himself declared on his application form to the Academy.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Adjudicated vs. alleged. Everything on this page rests on court-record convictions and TRA findings, not allegations. Sealy pleaded not guilty to every count and was convicted on 31 January 2024 at Cheshire Magistrates’ Court after trial; the TRA panel accepted the court record as conclusive proof of the convictions and worked from a signed statement of agreed facts that Sealy admitted. There are no acquittals to set against these convictions.
On 1 July 2023, Sealy attended a Chester horse racing event alongside a number of Academy staff. The police report referred to him having drunk around 10 pints, and the day ended with his arrest on four offences: being drunk and disorderly, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, and two counts of assault by beating of an emergency worker — two police officers. He also bit a bouncer during the incident; in the school’s investigation he explained that “he had bitten a bouncer on his thumb for a period of 20 seconds until Mr Sealy was sprayed with CS gas”. The panel called a bite of that duration, stopping “only because of the application of CS gas”, “a significant violent act”.
He was sentenced on 29 February 2024: imprisonment for 26 weeks, suspended for 12 months, because the offence was so serious that only a custodial sentence could be justified — with the ABH committed “in drink and whilst in a public place” — plus a further 4 weeks concurrent for the assaults on the officers, a rehabilitation activity requirement of up to 25 days, 200 hours of unpaid work, and £500 compensation for the ABH plus £50 for each officer.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The consequences unfolded slowly. The Academy opened an investigation into his conduct on 3 July 2023, but — as the panel recorded — “Mr Sealy continued to work in the School following his arrest until after his convictions”, with no evidence of violent behaviour in school or of attending work under the influence of alcohol. Only after the criminal proceedings concluded did the school act: a disciplinary hearing on 5 September 2024, the end of his employment the next day, and referral to the TRA on 20 December 2024.
At the TRA, Sealy admitted the allegations in his response of 21 July 2025 and in a signed statement of agreed facts. A Stage 1 meeting on 28 November 2025 found the convictions proved; at the Stage 3 hearing on 19 February 2026 he gave oral evidence. The panel noted that he feels “embarrassed and ashamed” about his conviction and was concerned about the impact of publicity on his school and the profession. It found that “Mr Sealy had demonstrated a high level of insight and remorse”: he had abstained from alcohol entirely since a few weeks after his arrest, making a declaration with Pioneer, a branch of the Catholic church, which he considers morally binds him to honouring that pledge. References described him as “doing everything in his power to make amends” and as “one of the most senior and respected members” of his rugby club. Applying “the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen”, the panel judged that “the recommendation of no prohibition order would be both a proportionate and an appropriate response”, with publication of its adverse findings sufficient.
Current Status
The panel’s recommendation did not stand. In a decision dated 20 February 2026, decision maker Stuart Blomfield, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, rejected it. Having weighed the insight and remorse findings, he concluded that “the panel has not placed sufficient weight on the seriousness of the proven conduct” — giving considerable weight to the “significant violent act” and the assaults on two police officers, and noting the published Advice that violence weighs in favour of a longer review period. He set the two-year statutory minimum as “a proportionate period” that balances “the insight and remorse of Mr Sealy”.
Sealy “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 order to be set aside, but “not until 26 February 2028” at the earliest, and a successful application is not automatic — without one, he remains prohibited indefinitely. He also has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of the order.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The ban ended a teaching career of more than two decades, one the panel found unblemished before these events. Sealy had chosen not to appeal his criminal convictions “out of concern for the attention and publicity it may attract”, and even discussed with his probation officer the wearing of an electronic tag, suggesting it would not help his role as a teacher. He has since abstained from alcohol entirely and volunteers to coach rugby every weekend. The panel had found that “no doubt had been cast upon his abilities as an educator” — precisely what the decision maker acknowledged but overrode. The case shows the reach of that override power: even where a regulator’s panel finds high insight, strong references and no classroom transfer of violence, the Secretary of State may still conclude that the seriousness of the conduct requires prohibition.