Mr Liam Walker

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 Liam Walker

Teacher reference number: 1935197

Teacher's date of birth: 23 September 1994

Location teacher worked: Stoke-on-Trent, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 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 Liam Walker formerly employed in Stoke-on-Trent, West Midlands.

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 - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Mr Liam Walker Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education April 2026 2 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 3 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Liam Walker Teacher ref number: 19/35197 Teacher date of birth: 23 September 1994 TRA reference: 24723 Date of determination: 8 April 2026 Former employer: Ormiston Meridian Academy, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 8 April 2026, to consider the case of Mr Liam Walker. The panel members were Ms Amanda Godfrey (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Erin Sudds (teacher panellist) and Dr Mark Sanderson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Bernard-Stevenson of Blake Morgan. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Walker that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Walker provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer Jordan Wilford, Mr Walker or his representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 22 January 2026. It was alleged that Mr Walker was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that: Whilst employed as a teacher at Sir William Stanier School during academic year 2023- 2024, and prior to employment at Ormiston Meridian Academy; 1. He engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Child A, by; a. Communicating with Child A on ChatIW and/or Snapchat b. Communicating with Child A when he knew or ought to have known that Child A was 13-years-old. 2. During his communications with Child A, he made comments to the effect of: a. “you never know what creeps are out there trying to get into your pants” b. “why you want me to come yours?” c. “are you a virgin?” d. “What do you want with old guys” e. “They could ask for nudes” f. [men would] “want more than a kiss” g. “you’re a virgin though, right?” h. “you’re defo gonna get someone in trouble haha hope you don’t send nudes” i. “I’m always a little worried to talk dirty to a teen as it’s illegal haha” j. “are you looking for sex? k. Telling a child “you defo want to though” when referring to sex; l. Discussing pregnancy 3. His behaviour as may be found proven at 2 above was conduct of a sexual nature Mr Walker admitted the facts of all the allegations. Mr Walker also admitted that his actions amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 4 to 26. Section 2: Statement of Agreed Facts and PO Submissions- pages 28 to 34. Section 3: Documents- pages 36 to 74. The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Walker on 3 October 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Walker for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the publ ic interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. At the material time, Mr Walker was employed at Sir William Stanier School in Crewe and was about to start his employment as a Religious Education teacher at Ormiston Meridian Academy (‘the Academy’.) Between 7 August 2024 and 15 August 2024, Mr Walker logged onto a chatroom named ‘ChatIW’ using the usernames ‘HungTeacherMeet’ and/or ‘Fit Teacher.’ On 7, 9, 13 and 15 August 2024, Mr Walker engaged in discussions with a 13 -year-old child (Child A.) These discussions also took place on a social media platform named Snapchat. On 7 August 2024, Child A informed Mr Walker that she was 13. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE In many of the messages sent by Mr Walker to Child A he asked Child A intrusive questions about her sexual history and made other sexualised remarks. On 4 September 2024, Mr Walker was arrested for engaging in Sexual Communications with a Child and conveyed to Middlewich Custody Suite in Cheshire operated by Cheshire Constabulary (‘the Police.’) [REDACTED] On 9 September 2024, Mr Walker was dismissed from his role with immediate effect. [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. You engaged in inappropriate and/or unprofessional behaviour towards Child A, by; The panel determined that the term ‘professional boundaries’ and ‘unprofessional behaviour’ was to be given its ordinary meaning. The panel considered allegations 1 (a) and 1(b) before considering the stem of the allegations. a. Communicating with Child A on ChatIW and/or Snapchat Between January 2024 until September 2024 , Mr Walker retained the role of Assistant Curriculum Leader Humanities at Sir William Stanier School based in Crewe. On 24 th April 2024, Mr Walker applied for the role of Religious Education teacher at Ormiston Meridian Academy. On 7 th May 2024, Mr Walker was offered the role of Religious Education teacher at Ormiston Meridian Academy. His employment with the Academy was scheduled to start on 1 September 2024. Between 7 and 15 August 2024, Mr Walker was employed by Sir William Stanier School. Mr Walker admits that he communicated with Child A on ChatIW and Snapchat. Mr Walker accordingly admits the facts of allegation 1(a.) 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE The panel was presented with a police case summary (MG5) . The panel noted that it had not been furnished with additional information such as the method by which the conduct had been brought to the Police’s attention. The panel also noted that there was no statement from Child A within the bundle of documents or a verbatim copy of the messages exchanged which had been extracted from the respective devices. Notwithstanding this, the panel accepted Mr Walker’s admission, which was consistent with the evidence before it (in particular the contents of the police case summary - MG5). Having found the conduct specified in allegation 1 (a) proved, the panel went on to consider whether the conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional. The panel determined that engaging in messages with a child on an online platform over the course of approximately one week, as a registered teacher, was both inappropriate and unprofessional. The panel noted that it was Mr Walker who led the interaction with Child A. Child A’s responses were limited in nature, and it was Mr Walker who asked a series of pr obing and/or intrusive questions. The panel was of the view that Mr Walker behaved in this way in order to test the boundaries with Child A and potentially invite Child A to discuss more risqué topics with him. The panel found allegation 1(a) proved. b. Communicating with Child A when you knew or ought to have known that Child A was 13-years-old Mr Walker admits that he knew or ought to have known that Child A was 13-years-old. In his statement, Mr Walker states that ChatIW is a platform which is advertised as 18+ but does not have sufficient age-checking systems. In this document, Mr Walker further states that during communication with Child A, she disclosed her age. Mr Walker accordingly admits the facts of allegation 1(b). The panel was presented with a police case summary (MG5.) The panel noted that Child A informed Mr Walker that she was 13 years of age during their first online interaction on 7 August 2024, yet Mr Walker continued to engage in online correspondence with Child A until 15 August 2024.The panel accepted Mr Walker’s admission, which was consistent with the evidence before it (in particular the contents of the police case summary (MG5.) Having found the conduct specified in allegation 1(b) proved, the panel went on to consider whether the conduct was inappropriate and unprofessional. The panel determined that Mr Walker’s behaviour in this regard was both inappropriate and unprofessional. The panel has found that Mr Walker (a registered teacher) engaged 8 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE in protracted and risqu