Michael Fogg

Introduction

Michael Fogg taught at Deneholm Primary School in Essex. In May 2023 he was prohibited from teaching indefinitely after a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel confirmed his February 2022 convictions at Chelmsford Crown Court for two counts of distributing indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children, three counts of making them, and one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image depicting bestiality — an image library spanning all severity categories, including five Category A images and a video. Fogg admitted every allegation in a signed statement of agreed facts and the case was decided without a hearing at his request. Decision maker Marc Cavey imposed a lifetime ban with no review period and no right to apply for restoration, citing the sentencing judge’s finding that Fogg had “developed an addiction of some kind to indecent images of children”.

Background Information

Fogg worked at Deneholm Primary School in Essex. On 23 February 2022, at Chelmsford Crown Court, he was convicted on his own confession of seven offences: distributing an indecent photograph of a child (one Category B image), distributing an indecent photograph (one Category C image), three counts of making indecent photographs (five Category A images; five Category B images and one video; nineteen Category C images), and possessing an extreme pornographic image, contrary to section 64 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, depicting bestiality. The sentencing transcript recorded the judge describing the images as “sexually enticing images of children aged, it seems, between about seven to 15”. He received a suspended prison sentence and was required to sign the sex offender notification register for seven years. The TRA case reached the panel a year later on the regulator’s own timetable.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Convicted and admitted. Fogg admitted all allegations in his agreed facts; the panel accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof and decided the case without a hearing at his request.

The panel worked through each count, matching the certificate of conviction to the sentencing transcript, in which the judge itemised the library: “distribution involved one category B, one category C..”, “making involved five category A, five category B and one video and 19 category C’s.” It found his actions deliberate — “There was no evidence that Mr Fogg’s actions were not deliberate” — and calculated and motivated, with no duress in play. In his letter to the panel dated 25 November 2022, Fogg called his own crimes “disgusting” and wrote: “Just to say sorry does not come close to explaining the feeling of remorse and regret I feel and I would do anything to rewind time and take everything back.” The panel noted the remorse but observed it “did not demonstrate how Mr Fogg has sought to address his behaviour”, and that no evidence had been provided attesting to his ability as a teacher. It gave considerable weight to the judge’s remarks that Fogg “developed an addiction of some kind to indecent images of children” and that the offending was “not a victimless crime”.

On sanction, the panel identified the Advice’s categorical language: any activity involving making, possessing, distributing or publishing indecent images of children, including one-off incidents, points against a review period — and Fogg’s offending combined all of those verbs across seven counts. It found the suspension in the criminal sentence did not soften the professional analysis, since the Advice grades offence categories rather than custodial outcomes. It recommended prohibition with immediate effect and no review period. Cavey agreed, describing the nature and seriousness of the conviction as a significant factor and concluding that the risk to the profession’s reputation if Fogg taught again could not be countenanced.

Public Reaction and Consequences

No press coverage attaches to the case; the published decision is the public record. The criminal court imposed the suspended sentence and the seven-year registration requirement; references from Fogg’s friends, mother and sister were mentioned at sentencing but the panel did not have sight of them, so no testimonial mitigation entered the professional case. The offences carried no finding connecting the images to his own pupils — the decision records only the age range of the children depicted, seven to 15, primary-school-adjacent ages that sharpened the panel’s safeguarding analysis. The case ran on the papers from notice to order inside four months.

Current Status

Fogg is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The decision maker further decided that he shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The determination is dated 22 May 2023, with Cavey’s order dated 24 May 2023, effective from service. He retains a right of appeal to the King’s Bench Division of the High Court within 28 days of notice of the order; the published record shows none was filed.

Impact on Their Career/Life

Fogg’s case sits at the intersection of the Advice’s two hardest categories: child indecent images and extreme pornography, with distribution on top of making. The sentencing judge’s addiction framing cut both ways — it explained the conduct but, in the panel’s hands, became the reason no review period could be offered, since an unaddressed addiction reads as a live risk. The case also shows the limited value of personal-remorse letters in agreed-facts cases: the panel quoted Fogg’s own words back at length and still found nothing in them evidencing behavioural change. For a primary-school teacher, the seven-to-15 age range of the depicted children closed any argument that the offending was far removed from his working life. The ban is for life, and the restoration right is extinguished.

Sources

• Dept for Education, “Professional conduct panel meeting outcome: Mr Michael Fogg” — source