Jonathon McCreery

Introduction

Jonathon McCreery is a former cover supervisor and PE teacher at Looe Community Academy in Cornwall, teacher reference number 1074381, who was prohibited from teaching indefinitely in April 2026. A Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel found all five allegations against him proved: that between about October 2021 and January 2022 he failed to maintain professional boundaries with a junior colleague, Colleague A, through inappropriate messages and escalating physical contact; that the conduct was sexually motivated; that it showed a lack of insight despite earlier warnings; and that he concealed a disciplinary history — including dismissal from a previous school over advances toward three female colleagues — in his job application. No criminal case features in the decision.

Background Information

McCreery’s route into Looe was itself part of the case. Between March and June 2021 he was employed at a school where the panel found it more likely than not that he made persistent advances toward three female colleagues — behaviour that began as jokes and persisted after the women made their discomfort clear — and his employment there was terminated. His application form to Looe, dated 21 June 2021, listed no employment after January 2020 and answered No when asked whether he had ever faced formal disciplinary procedures. He started as a cover supervisor on 29 June 2021 adding PE teaching duties from 1 September 2021, under final-warning conditions requiring strictly professional conduct.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Admitted four of five allegations; denied sexual motivation at the hearing; all five found proved; prohibited with a 5-year review period. The panel sat on 26–27 January 2026, reconvened through February, and the decision was taken on 17 April 2026.

The findings centre on Colleague A, a junior colleague at the school. After an incident left her distressed, McCreery gave her his phone number for support, and the next morning told her “I was worried all night about you”. Months of messages the panel found clearly crossed professional lines: “you are extremely good looking”; calling her by a pet name; signing off with kisses; proposing a secret shared only between the two of them; asking whether a cuddle was all she wanted; and pointing to the cupboard in their tutor room as a possible venue. Colleague A said the messages made her uncomfortable and that she felt pressured to mirror his style rather than initiating them, keeping screenshots for friends as his behaviour came to feel unusual. His answer was that the exchanges were somewhat reciprocal.

He pressed beyond messaging. He told her “you need to find us a quiet space” for a cuddle; she deflected that a school has no quiet spaces, and he replied that he was counting on her finding one — the moment, she said, she realised his interest was not friendly. She described being encouraged toward an empty cupboard or room alone, including an occasion when he called the moment a perfect opportunity and beckoned her to follow. The physical contact allegations were also proved: brushing his thumb across her upper chest under cover of examining the logo on her coat; poking and nudging her in front of pupils, some of whom had begun to notice; and, on 18 January 2022, putting his arms around her in a cupboard, pulling her back when she stepped away and running his hands over her back as she tried to mentally remove herself from the situation. Formal disciplinary proceedings followed, and he was summarily dismissed on 14 February 2022. The remaining allegations concerned his job application, which denied any disciplinary history; he admitted being desperate to secure the role, and the panel found the omission deliberate, dishonest and destructive of the school’s safer recruitment procedures.

His posture shifted along the way. He admitted allegations 1, 3, 4 and 5, and had signed a Statement of Agreed Facts in February 2025 admitting all five — but told the panel he no longer admitted allegation 2, sexual motivation. The panel treated that statement with caution and decided the point on the evidence: his admitted attraction to Colleague A, his concession that the exchanges brought personal gratification and an ego boost, and messages about wanting “something more” that he could not explain. Although no sexual relationship occurred, a desire for one need only be a contributing factor; the panel found a progression of small escalations from messages to physical contact, and allegation 2 was proved.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The panel found strong public interest considerations on every head: safeguarding pupils, public confidence in the profession, and proper standards of conduct. Some of the conduct unfolded within the direct eyeline of pupils, who commented on his behaviour toward Colleague A; the panel said he had exploited his position of trust over a junior female colleague. In mitigation it weighed his admissions at the outset, remorse in closing submissions — “I am deeply sorry for my behaviour and my conduct and I will never forgive myself.” — and a sexual harassment course completed with a perfect score. But it found insufficient evidence of insight, was not satisfied he understood the impact on Colleague A, and rejected the suggestion the conduct was out of character: it was sustained over time and followed previous warnings. It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and a 5-year review period.

Current Status

On 17 April 2026 David Oatley, deciding on behalf of the Secretary of State, concluded that a prohibition order was proportionate and in the public interest, giving considerable weight to the lack of full insight and the risk of repetition. McCreery 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 before 17 April 2031 — five years from the date of the order — though that is not an automatic right. The order took effect when served; he may appeal to the High Court within 28 days. The outcome was published on 1 May 2026.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Summarily dismissed in February 2022 and barred indefinitely, McCreery has no route back before 2031 even if he applies. The ban rests on two legs: sexually motivated boundary-breaching toward a junior colleague sustained over months, and deception of a recruitment process that exists to keep such histories out of schools. He said he had moved into a male-dominated environment and completed training; neither panel was persuaded that this amounted to rehabilitation.

Sources

• Department for Education, “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Jonathon McCreery” — source