Mr Jonathon McCreery

The Secretary of State does not make these decisions themselves. They are made by a senior official on the recommendation of an independent panel.

Teacher's name: Mr Jonathon McCreery

Teacher reference number: 1074381

Teacher's date of birth: 29 May 1989

Location teacher worked: Cornwall, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 26 January 2026 to27 January, reconvened 9 February 2026 to 17 February, Reconvened 14 April 2026

Outcome type: Prohibition order

Notice is hereby given that, in accordance with The Teacher's’ Disciplinary (England) Regulations 2012, a professional conduct panel was convened to consider the case of Mr Jonathon McCreery formerly employed in Cornwall, South West England.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Mr Jonathon McCreery: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2026 2 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 6 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 25 3 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Jonathon McCreery Teacher ref number: 1074381 Teacher date of birth: 29 May 1989 TRA reference: 20655 Date of determination: 14 April 2026 Former employer: Looe Community Academy, Sunrising, East Looe, Cornwall Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 26 January 2026 and 17 February 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Jonathon McCreery. The panel members were Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Kim Chudley (lay panellist) and Ms Jo Palmer-Tweed (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Davina Kahlon of Eversheds Sutherland International LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Saiqa Islam of No.8 Chambers, instructed by Capsticks LLP and on 14 April 2026, Mr Scott Smith of Capsticks LLP. Mr Jonathon McCreery was present and was not represented. Independent counsel, Mr Martin Jones of Hugh James LLP solicitors was instructed by the TRA to question Colleague A on behalf of Mr McCreery. The hearing took place in public save those portions of the hearing were heard in private and was recorded. 4 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the Notice of Proceedings dated 12 November 2025. It was alleged that Mr McCreery was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while employed as a teacher at Looe Community Academy (“the School”) he: 1. Between approximately October 2021 and January 2022 failed to maintain professional boundaries with Colleague A by: a. Sending inappropriate messages as set out in Schedule 1: b. On one or more occasions suggesting that he and Colleague A should ‘find somewhere quiet’ for a ‘cuddle’ (or words to that effect); c. On one or more occasions encouraged and or coerced Colleague A to follow him into an empty cupboard and/or room alone; d. On one or more occasions encouraged and/ or coerced Colleague A to engage in inappropriate physical contact whilst at School; e. Making inappropriate physical contact with Colleague A in front of pupils by poking her with his fingers and/or nudging her with his foot; f. On the 18 January 2022 he made inappropriate physical contact with Colleague A in a cupboard. 2. Mr McCreery’s conduct as set out in any or all of allegation 1 was sexually motivated. 3. Mr McCreery’s conduct as may be proven at allegation 1 and/or 2 demonstrated a lack of insight into his conduct where previous concerns have been raised and advice and/or training provided. 4. Mr McCreery failed to declare in his application for a position at the School: a. The full facts in relation to his previous role(s); b. That he had been subject to one or more conduct investigations; c. That his conduct resulted in his previous employment being ceased and/or terminated. 5 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE 5. Mr McCreery’s conduct as set out in allegation 4 was dishonest and/or lacked integrity. Mr McCreery admitted allegations 1, 3, 4 and 5 but denied allegation 2. In respect of the admitted allegations, Mr McCreery accepted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel was provided with a Statement of Agreed Facts, signed and dated 21 February 2025, in which Mr McCreery admitted all of the allegations. The panel noted the bundle also included correspondence between Mr McCreery and Capsticks LLP, acting on behalf of the TRA, in which Mr McCreery sought amendments to the Statement of Agreed Facts. Those amendments were not agreed. The panel further noted that, when giving oral evidence, Mr McCreery stated that he no longer admitted allegation 2, and that he had signed the Statement of Agreed Facts only because he wanted the matter to be dealt with quickly and for it to proceed as a Professional Conduct Panel Meeting rather than a Professional Conduct Panel Hearing. In light of these matters, the panel treated the Statement of Agreed Facts with caution. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology; anonymised pupil list and schedule to the allegations – pages 5 to 21 Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and response – pages 22 to 55 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 56 to 70 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 71 to 93 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 94 to 475 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 476 to 496 In addition, the panel agreed to accept: • Screenshot of a message between Mr McCreery and Colleague A dated 6 August 2025; • Statement from Mr McCreery. 6 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Colleague A; [REDACTED] Witness B – [REDACTED] Witness C – [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. Mr McCreery commenced employment at the School as a cover supervisor on 29 June 2021 and, from 1 September 2021, additionally undertook duties as a PE Teacher. In January 2022 he became the subject of formal disciplinary proceedings and was summarily dismissed on 14 February 2022. Mr McCreery had previously been employed by [REDACTED]. He was subsequently employed at [REDACTED] between March and June 2021. On 15 March 2022, the [REDACTED] referred Mr McCreery to the Teaching Regulation Agency. Both the School and [REDACTED] are part of the [REDACTED]. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. Between approximately October 2021 and January 2022 failed to maintain professional boundaries with Colleague A by: a. Sending inappropriate messages as set out in Schedule 1; 7 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE The panel heard evidence from Colleague A who confirmed that Mr McCreery gave her his phone number following an incident with a pupil in which Colleague A was distressed. Colleague A confirmed that the following morning Mr McCreery told Colleague A “I was worried all night about you” and that she could have his phone number for support. Colleague A reviewed the screenshots of messages within the bundle and confirmed that her messages appeared in the blue bubbles and Mr McCreery’s appeared in the grey bubbles. The panel reviewed the screenshots provided in the bundle and was satisfied that these messages corresponded to those set out in Schedule 1 to the allegations. The panel reviewed all the messages set out in Schedule 1, and noted in particular the following messages: - “you are extremely good looking”; - “I’m sure you’ve noticed me lookin at you [hearts/eyes emoji]”; - Referring to Colleague A as “babe”; - “I wish I had seen you crying I would have given you a [REDACTED] cuddle if that would be allowed?”; - ending messages “xxx”; - “something more. Like a secret for just between me and you! [wink emoji] haha xxx” - “ok being brave… is it just a cuddle you want?? Xxx”; - “we do have that little cupboard in our tutor room [emoji wink/face]”; - “so what else is on your mind now we’re getting into it”. The panel noted paragraph 11 of Colleague A’s statement: “When I received these messages at the time, I felt uncomfortable. I tried to convince myself that I was being stupid, but I had [REDACTED]. The truth is that I did not know how to feel or act, I did not really talk much and did not really know what the appropriate response to the Teacher’s messages were.” The panel noted there were also messages from Colleague A which included “xxx” in the responses. Colleague A explained during oral evidence that she did not initiate the messages, nor did she choose to include “xxx”; rather, they felt pressured to mirror Mr McCreery’s style of messaging. Colleague A nevertheless stated that it was common for her to [REDACTED] in this way, and that she regarded Mr McCreery as a friend at work at the time. The panel also noted a message from Colleague A, exhibited to Mr McCreery’s statement, in which Colleague A stated: “I’ve really missed seeing you around.” Colleague A explained that this message was sent in the context of missing a friend and colleague around the School, as Mr McCreery had been absent with [REDACTED]. Colleague A further stated that she viewed Mr McCreery as a mentor whom they would approach for support. 8 OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE OFFICIAL-SENSITIVE Mr McCreery explained, when giving oral evidence, that the messages between him and Colleague A were “somew