Steven Battye
Introduction
Steven Battye was a science teacher who worked at Brighton Hill Community School from January to May 2019 and then at The Romsey School in Romsey from September 2019; his application to the latter declared previous senior leadership roles, including a promotion to headship. A professional conduct panel of the Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) sitting from 1 to 3 December 2025 considered allegations that he had made inappropriate, unprofessional and sexual comments to pupils, sworn in front of them, invaded a pupil’s personal space and made inappropriate gestures across both schools. The panel found the allegations proven save for one gesture claim; Battye, who was not present and was not represented, has been prohibited from teaching indefinitely.
Background Information
The panel sat with Mrs Christine McLintock, a teacher panellist, in the chair and lay panellists Mrs Rebecca Beaty and Mrs Jill Wells; Mr Mark Millin presented for the TRA and Mr Nicholas West of Birketts LLP advised on law. Battye made no formal admission of fact before the hearing. In June 2019 Pupil H disclosed his conduct at Brighton Hill and other pupils gave statements; after he moved to The Romsey School, further reports followed in November and December 2020. He was suspended on 10 December 2020 and the matter was referred to the TRA on 28 July 2021.
The Controversy or Incident That Led to Their Cancellation
Findings, not convictions. The findings below come from a Teaching Regulation Agency professional conduct panel which found the allegations proven on the balance of probabilities — the civil standard of more likely than not. They are regulatory adjudications rather than court judgments: Battye was not present and was not represented, and made no formal admission of fact prior to the hearing, though he later admitted to the TRA that he had made “an error at the end of his career” and offered apologies.
At Brighton Hill the panel found that Battye had called Pupil H “my angel”, talked to pupils about different names for vaginas while walking around the room saying “minge”, answered her question with “yes minge” and asked pupils “who needs lubrication then”. When she asked for a match to light a Bunsen burner, it found he replied “you can’t have a match but you know what is a match, my ass and your face, oh I mean your ass and my face”, while not considering that remark sexual. Accepting Pupil H as credible — Witness A called her “as model student as you could imagine” — the panel also found he swore in front of pupils and invaded her personal space by dragging a stool over and leaning towards her face, leaving her avoiding eye contact with him.
On the Romsey allegations the only evidence was hearsay, witnesses having disengaged with the passage of time, but the panel gave weight to contemporaneous written accounts. It found Battye told Pupil B “why haven’t you shrunk, penises shrink in the cold so I wonder why you haven’t shrunk yet” and made other comments it judged sexual because all were linked to the boy’s genitalia, including calling him “a little dick”, “twat”, “knob” and saying he had a “small dick” and “small todger”; it also noted a report that he handed him a 30cm ruler saying “I think you need a smaller one”. During a practical it found he said “blow on it harder…no not like that, you’ve got a dirty mind…” and “Pupil D knows how to blow it”. Battye denied the allegations, telling the investigator “No, I did not say it”; a middle-finger gesture while explaining atoms was found unproven, but waving his little finger at Pupil B was proven.
The panel found the conduct breached the Teachers’ Standards, The Romsey School’s code of conduct and Keeping Children Safe in Education, amounting to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. It found a repetitive pattern, particularly towards Pupils H and B, but concluded the conduct was not sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and so did not amount to sexual misconduct, while viewing the comments as akin to factors incompatible with being a teacher and the behaviour as deep-seated, with a real risk of repetition.
Public Reaction and Consequences
The published record documents institutional consequences rather than any wider public or media reaction. Battye was suspended by The Romsey School on 10 December 2020, days after a staff member’s report and Pupil N’s report; an internal investigation led by Individual A followed, reporting in May 2021, before the TRA referral. Within the proceedings several pupils spoke well of him — Pupil B called him “a good teacher”, Pupil X described him as “just lovely”, and Witness A called him “a safe pair of hands” — yet the panel found pupils had been left feeling uncomfortable and humiliated, that Pupil H said his comments made her “curl up inside and uncomfortable”, and that the public would be “shocked and appalled” by the behaviour. It recommended prohibition with immediate effect and, on 8 December 2025, decision maker Sarah Buxcey, acting for the Secretary of State, imposed the order.
Current Status
Battye is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. The prohibition carries a five-year review period: he may apply for the order to be set aside, but not until 2030 at the earliest, and such an application is not an automatic right to have it removed — a panel would meet to consider the matter. 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 of notice; the published record documents no appeal. The panel determined the case on 3 December 2025 and the decision maker signed the order on 8 December 2025.
Impact on Their Career/Life
The order ends Battye’s teaching career in England for at least the review period. He told the TRA that teaching was “truly the best career anyone could undertake” and that he would “like to continue”, but the panel found only very limited evidence of insight or remorse, noting his written representations had focused on the proceedings’ impact on him, suggesting Individual A was “acting in a bullying and harassing” way and that pupils were “coming for him”. Without a successful application after 2030, he remains prohibited indefinitely.