Michael Heayes
Introduction
Michael Heayes is a former supply teacher who worked through the agency Teaching Personnel Ltd from 6 May 2003, including at Noadswood School in Hampshire, and who was banned from teaching for life after a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) panel found he possessed indecent images of children and knowingly downloaded files he knew would likely contain them. He was prosecuted over the images but was found not guilty; the panel made its own findings on the civil standard, the balance of probabilities. At the virtual hearing on 30 and 31 October 2025 he was present, unrepresented, and gave evidence, having made no admission of fact beforehand. On 5 November 2025 the decision maker prohibited him from teaching indefinitely.
Background Information
Heayes’ employment with Teaching Personnel Ltd began on 6 May 2003, and he was working as a supply teacher at Noadswood School at the material time. On 8 March 2021 a referral was made to the police suggesting that offences relating to indecent images of children had been committed, and an IP address linked to his home address was supplied to officers. On 24 June 2021, while he was working at the school, police attended his home and seized his laptop and desktop computer; forensic triage found apparent indecent images on the computer. A referral was made to the TRA on 5 July 2021.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Acquitted in court — but the panel found the images were his.
A full forensic examination of the seized HP computer tower found a considerable quantity of illegal files: 95 Category A files (71 images and 24 videos), 249 Category B files (169 images and 80 videos) and 1,803 Category C files (1,504 images and 299 videos), together with 983 prohibited images of children and search terms indicative of those known to be used to locate indecent images of children. In a voluntary interview on 2 July 2021 Heayes acknowledged that indecent images of children had been downloaded to his device but said he believed he had deleted them. He described two routes by which they arrived: a zip file of 1970s pornography containing a folder of torrents he clicked open, and a file download called “hidden chan”. He said he used peer-to-peer sharing mostly for music and movies but also downloaded pornography via “pirate bay”, where “you don’t always get what you think you are going to get”, and that files with purely numerical names could on occasion result in child pornography being downloaded, though he said this was unusual.
Heayes was subsequently prosecuted but was found not guilty, an outcome the TRA did not contest. Before the panel he accepted that he had downloaded and accessed inappropriate photographs and pseudo-photographs of children of a sexual nature, but maintained the downloads were unintentional and that he deleted such images once he recognised their content. He also submitted that material placed before the criminal court, but not before the panel, showed 99% of the illegal images were fragments reassembled from “parsed” content rather than complete files, and that it was inappropriate to act on the numbers cited. The panel noted it had very limited direct evidence supporting that contention, and that its finding would have been the same whether or not the images were fragmented.
The panel found allegation 1 only partially proven: there was no evidence that on 24 June 2021 he downloaded or made such photographs, but his possession of photographs and/or pseudo-photographs of children that were inappropriate and/or of a sexual nature was proven on the balance of probabilities. Allegation 2 was proven in full. Heayes did not contest Google searches recovered from his device, including “young Lolita blowjob redhead”, “russian teen pussy” and “fiona cooper schoolgirl pussy”. He argued that “teen” in pornographic usage meant the 18 to 22 age group and that “Google is well policed and Google is safe ground”; asked whether “Lolita” was used as a search term for an under-18-year-old, he answered “not on Google”. The panel considered that “Lolita” is commonly understood to refer to a child, found his explanation implausible, noted his download on 26 May 2021 of a torrent file entitled “Master Film Lolita Special.avi”, and concluded that he knowingly downloaded files he knew would likely contain indecent images of children.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The panel found the proven facts amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, breaching Teachers’ Standards covering public trust, the safeguarding of pupils’ wellbeing and proper boundaries. Although the conduct took place outside the education setting, it found the content, including the knowing downloading of files likely to contain indecent images of children, would be extremely disturbing for any pupil, parent or other in the community, and that his actions fell a long way below the high standards which the public were entitled to expect of teachers. Given several opportunities, Heayes declined to provide any evidence of mitigation or remorse, maintaining his innocence of any wrongdoing. The panel found the knowing downloading was deliberate, considered the risk of repetition was on the face of it a substantial one, and recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect and no review period.
Current Status
On 5 November 2025 Sarah Buxcey, the decision maker acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, endorsed the panel’s recommendation. Heayes is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. In view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, she decided he shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach, meaning the order carries no review period. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him, and he has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of it. The outcome was published on 27 November 2025.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The prohibition ends a teaching career stretching back to 2003, and unlike many TRA cases it offers no route back: no review period and no entitlement to apply for restoration. His acquittal in the criminal courts did not shield him, because the panel applied the civil standard to the same underlying evidence, and the published decision records panel findings of possession and knowing downloading notwithstanding his denial of wrongdoing. The panel had no evidence of previous allegations or findings of wrongdoing, but equally no evidence of insight, remorse or his ability as an educator, and the decision maker concluded that public confidence in the profession required a permanent prohibition.