Miguel Pastor
Introduction
Miguel Pastor was a supply teacher placed through the recruitment agency Uteach Ltd at St Dominic Savio Catholic Primary School in Reading, where he taught a year 3 class from December 2018. In June 2019 he was confronted on his way to work by a ‘paedophile hunting’ group and arrested by police. Although the police took no further action, a Teaching Regulation Agency panel found in September 2025 that he had sent sexually explicit KIK messages to people he had reason to believe were 9 and 13 years old. On 1 October 2025 he was banned for life, with no review period or right to apply for restoration.
Background Information
Pastor gained qualified teacher status on 25 August 2018 and was a newly qualified teacher when Uteach placed him at the school. On the morning of 25 June 2019 he was approached by a ‘paedophile hunting’ group as he walked to work. Such groups pose as children online to lure adults who seek to engage children in sexual activity. The confrontation was video recorded and live streamed on social media, and police arrived and arrested him. He was interviewed and conditionally bailed. The school contacted Uteach to say it would no longer require his services. His bail conditions were removed in September 2019, and no further action was taken. The TRA issued a notice of proceedings on 9 May 2025.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Sexually explicit KIK messages to people he had reason to believe were aged 9 and 13.
A professional conduct panel convened virtually on 24 September 2025. Pastor was not present and was not represented, and the panel determined to proceed in his absence. In his police interview he admitted using the KIK profile name “Drackon Axel”, and a witness identified him from ‘selfie’ photographs sent by that account. A second witness said that in the police interview “Mr Pastor confirmed that he had sent those messages.”
The panel saw messages from “Drackon Axel” to a person he had reason to believe was 9 years old, referred to as Individual A. Pastor initiated contact, and Individual A replied, “I’m 9 from Manchester Wbu.” He responded, “I’m a bit older. I’m 32 and I live in Reading. I hope my age doesn’t bother you.” The exchange quickly became sexually explicit, beginning with the question “Have you ever kissed a guy/boy before??” The messages continued over at least two days; on the second day Pastor returned to the subject, asking “Did you think a lot on the conversation we had yesterday??” and “…you have never played with your vagina??” In his police interview he said the person “did not sound like a 9-year-old. I teach that age and it doesn’t sound like a person who is 9. But I still did ask if she had boyfriend. I did ask… what do you know about sex.” The panel found allegations 1(a) and 1(b) proved.
The panel also saw messages to a person he had reason to believe was 13, Individual B, who wrote “I’m 13 Sheffield. 14 in July.” Pastor replied that he was 32 and hoped that was not a problem. When Individual B asked, “I’m 13 tho is that ok”, he answered “Of course…”. He complimented her appearance after asking for a photograph, calling it “very sexy”, and then initiated a sexually explicit conversation. The messages continued over a few days. The panel found allegations 1(c) and 1(d) proved, determining in each instance that the messaging was clearly inappropriate where he had no way of knowing for sure that the individual was an adult and had repeatedly stated her age.
Asked in his police interview whether the purpose of the communication was sexual gratification, Pastor answered yes. The panel found his conduct was of a sexual nature and was sexually motivated, amounting to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. It noted breaches of the Teachers’ Standards and of statutory safeguarding guidance, found the offence of sexual communication with a child relevant, and observed that some messages were sent on school premises, with photographs showing him wearing the school lanyard.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The decision records no press coverage of the TRA proceedings, though it notes that the hunting group’s video of the June 2019 confrontation was live streamed on social media, causing reputational damage to the school, which held safeguarding assemblies and worked to reassure parents and staff. Witnesses described Pastor as a “lovely guy” to whom the “children responded well to him and there were no safeguarding concerns”, and one employment reference called him “a responsible and committed teacher”. The panel nonetheless found that he showed “a complete and utter disregard for the age of the individuals” and determined that there was “a real risk of repeated behaviour” given his lack of insight. It recommended a prohibition order with immediate effect, without a review period. On 1 October 2025 the decision maker, Marc Cavey, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, imposed the order, by which point Pastor had already lost his school placement in June 2019.
Current Status
Pastor is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Because the order was made without a review period, he cannot apply for it to be reconsidered after a fixed term, and the decision maker ruled that he is not entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach, making the ban permanent. The order takes effect from the date it is served on him. He has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days of being given notice of the order. The 2019 police inquiry ended with no further action, so the prohibition rests on the panel’s findings rather than any conviction.
Impact on Their Career/Life
Pastor’s teaching career ended with the June 2019 incident, and the 2025 decision bars him from the profession in England for life. The panel found he told police he was “addicted” to masturbation and pornography, and it was not provided with evidence that he had attended counselling to address it. It concluded he had an inadequate understanding of safeguarding and had shown no clear insight or remorse, since he had “no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals were not children”.