Mr Harry Eastham

Introduction

Mr Harry Eastham is a newly qualified teacher who had just been engaged to work at Christ Church Church of England Primary School in Erith, Kent, when a police investigation found he had uploaded a Category A indecent image of a child to Instagram, exchanged indecent images in sexual chats about young girls on Instagram and Twitter, and posed online as a 10-year-old girl, sending messages stating “Want you to touch my 10 year old Pussy” and asking “Can I still be 10?”. He never took up his teaching post. A professional conduct panel found all of the allegations proved on his own police interview and the seized evidence, and the decision maker for the Secretary of State banned him for life with no right ever to apply for restoration.

Background Information

Eastham trained as a primary teacher, and his degree tutor told the panel’s investigators there had been no hesitation in recommending him to schools for his first teaching post; a previous employer at a day nursery reported no safeguarding concerns. The police investigation began when Instagram reported in April 2020 that two files had been uploaded to an account, one of which was found on the Child Abuse Images Database as a 23-second Category A moving image depicting a child of approximately six years old. The upload traced to the internet address at which Eastham lived, and officers seized three devices from him. The panel convened twice, in March and August 2023, by virtual means; Eastham was not present and was not represented at the reconvened hearing.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Indecent images of children and online sexual posing as a child. Found proved on his own police interview and digital evidence. The decision record notes his police interviews; no conviction outcome is recorded in the regulatory decision.

In his police interview Eastham admitted creating the Instagram account that had uploaded the Category A file, and said he had been using a fake account in April 2020 to communicate with someone who sent him indecent images of children that he forwarded on to someone else, describing three or four images of unclothed girls aged around five or six. He said the images would have saved to his phone, that he deleted them, and that he initially lied about it being a single occasion: only when officers told him his devices would be forensically examined did he describe the full pattern. The panel noted that certain information was provided only after that forensic warning was given. On the devices, investigators recovered two images, one a cartoon of a naked female toddler that the panel was told could be defined as pornographic under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.

The panel also found the online behaviour allegation proved. Eastham described general conversations on Instagram and Twitter that became sexual, chat about “little girls”, being asked if he had “done anything with younger children”, and saying yes when offered pictures. He confirmed he used a false username and purported to be a girl of 18 or 19, editing an internet image as his profile, and could not explain why he purported to be a girl at all. The panel examined the message evidence directly: examples sent from his account over a period included “Want you to touch my 10 year old Pussy” and “Can I still be 10?”, and the panel found these exchanges, with his interview, proved he engaged in inappropriate discussions about sexual activity with children and the exchange of indecent images, and that his behaviour demonstrated a sexual interest in children.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found a strong public interest in the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils given the findings of downloading, viewing and sharing indecent images of children and of social-media discussions about sexual activity with children, all of which demonstrated a sexual interest in children, and it concluded his behaviour was fundamentally incompatible with being a teacher. It noted he was a newly qualified teacher with no evidence of exceptional contribution, that he adduced no evidence of character, and that he did not engage with the proceedings at all. On his police interviews, the panel observed that he answered questions rather than remaining silent but withheld the full account until the forensic warning. It recommended prohibition with no review period, and the decision maker decided further that Eastham shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach.

Current Status

The decision was made by Sarah Buxcey on behalf of the Secretary of State on 15 August 2023, following the panel’s determination of 10 August 2023. Mr Harry Eastham is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Because of the seriousness of the allegations found proved, the decision maker decided that Eastham shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach, meaning no future panel can revisit the ban. The order took effect from the date it was served on him, and he had a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Eastham’s teaching career ended before it began: the post at Christ Church Erith was never taken up, and the ban with no restoration clause forecloses any future in the profession regardless of the career he might have built. The case is also a study in how the regulator treats digital evidence and a suspect’s own account, the Instagram report, the database match, the IP address, and a police interview in which the fuller admissions came only after the forensic warning all became the permanent findings against a teacher who never appeared to contest them.

Sources

• Teaching Regulation Agency, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Harry Eastham” — source