Michael Lee

Introduction

Michael Lee is a former Designated Safeguarding Lead and assistant headteacher at Swaffham Bulbeck Primary School in Cambridgeshire who was banned from teaching for life in December 2024 after a panel found he had pursued a former pupil with a sexualised social-media exchange while she was still at school — including calling her “stunning”, quizzing her about her sex life, asking for a photo of her in the bath and another while she was in bed — and then tried to add her on Snapchat. Lee had already received a written warning over the same girl in 2017; when the school joined a multi-academy trust and the matter reached the TRA, his employment ended in 2020. Decision maker David Oatley banned him with no review period and no right of restoration.

Background Information

Lee worked at Swaffham Bulbeck Primary School from 1 September 2016 to 25 September 2020, rising to Designated Safeguarding Lead and assistant head — a role the panel noted carried a higher level of understanding of safeguarding duties than most teachers. In 2017, while holding those posts, he was subject to an internal disciplinary process over an interaction with a former pupil, Pupil A, on social media; it concluded with only a written warning. The matter was revisited when the school joined a multi-academy trust, which referred it to the TRA in 2019.

While the TRA investigation was running, a second girl’s parents reported in May 2021 that Lee had appeared to be trying to contact their daughter on social media when she was a pupil. Pupil B spoke to police about classroom behaviour she alleged; police decided the threshold for a criminal offence was not met, but the matter was considered by the LADO and referred to the TRA again.

The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation

Sexually motivated boundary breaches with a pupil he had taught — proven on her live evidence; a second pupil’s allegations fell below the proof threshold.

Between 6 and 12 May 2017, while Pupil A was still at the school, Lee exchanged messages with her in which he called her “stunning”, discussed her romantic relationship, told her “he didn’t deserve to be with you” and asked “have you slept with your bf”. The panel found he attempted to add her on Snapchat, requested a photo of her while she was in the bath, and requested a photo when he knew she was in bed. Pupil A gave live evidence about the exchange and told the panel she had reported the messages and ended the conversation promptly. The panel found all sub-particulars of the boundary allegation proved, and found the conduct was of a sexual nature and sexually motivated — citing in Lee’s favour nothing, and against him the trust implicit in his safeguarding role. An allegation of friendship with her on Facebook was proven as the gateway particular, and a further particular about hugs with Pupil B was not proven to the verifiable standard the panel required.

The panel treated the case as aggravated by Lee’s own position: the teacher responsible for safeguarding at the school was the one crossing boundaries with a pupil. His earlier written warning for conduct toward the same girl, in 2017, showed the behaviour was not a single lapse. Lee did not attend the hearing, and the panel amended the sexual-motivation allegation during proceedings over no prejudice to him.

Public Reaction and Consequences

The published decision records no press coverage or social-media reaction. Professionally, the panel found the sexual-misconduct factors of the TRA’s published advice engaged directly — “any sexual misconduct involving a child” — and recommended a prohibition order with no provision for a review period. It noted Pupil A had handled the exchange appropriately by reporting it, and that Lee’s senior safeguarding role made the breach more serious, not less. Character evidence and his prior written warning were weighed, with the panel concluding there was no further public interest in retaining him.

Oatley agreed that no review period was appropriate, and went further: in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved, he decided Lee shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. The decision is dated 13 December 2024, following a determination of 10 December 2024.

Current Status

Lee is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. With the restoration right removed, the ban is effectively permanent; his only route is an appeal to the High Court within 28 days of notice. No criminal charge resulted from either the 2017 exchange or the 2021 police referral — the police explicitly found the threshold not met for the Pupil B complaint — so the TRA findings, published in December 2024, are the only public adjudication of his conduct. The seven-year gap between the 2017 messages and the 2024 ban illustrates how slowly teacher-regulatory consequences can accumulate when a first internal warning fails to stop the conduct.

Impact on Their Career/Life

The ban ends a career that had already peaked: by 2017 Lee held simultaneous safeguarding and senior-leadership responsibility, and the written warning he received then did not prevent the TRA referral two years later or the lifetime ban five years after that. The case’s sharpest lesson is structural — a school’s Designated Safeguarding Lead used private messages to sexualise a relationship with a pupil, and the school’s own disciplinary process responded with the lightest available sanction. The multi-academy trust’s decision to revisit the closed case, and Pupil A’s decision to report and preserve the messages, are what carried the matter to a published lifetime ban. For Pupil B’s allegations, the panel’s refusal to find them proven despite the police also declining action shows the regulatory standard demanding more than suspicion.

Sources

• source — “Teacher misconduct panel outcome: Mr Michael Lee”, GOV.UK, Teaching Regulation Agency, published 10 December 2024.