Mr Michael Pierce

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 Michael Pierce

Teacher reference number: 1840254

Teacher's date of birth: 13 September 1991

Location teacher worked: Pontefract, Yorkshire and The Humber

Date of professional conduct panel: 2 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 Michael Pierce formerly employed in Pontefract, Yorkshire and The Humber.

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 Michael Pierce: 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 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 10 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 14 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 Michael Pierce Teacher ref number: 1840254 Teacher date of birth: 13 September 1991 TRA reference: 20706 Date of determination: 2 April 2026 Former employer: The Featherstone Academy, Pontefract Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 2 April 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Michael Pierce. The panel members were Mr Carl Lygo (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Antonia Jackson (teacher panellist) and Mrs Lucy Conley (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP Solicitors. 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 Pierce that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Pierce provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr David Drew of Browne Jacobson LLP, or Mr Pierce. The meeting took place in private. 4 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 8 January 2026. It was alleged that Mr Pierce was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 3 May 2024, he was convicted at Leeds Crown Court of the offences of: a. 1 count of Distribute and indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child; b. 1 count of Offender 18 or over cause a child under 13 to watch/look at an image of sexual activity; c. 2 counts of Cause/Incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration. Mr Pierce admitted the allegations and that he is guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology – page 4 Section 2: Notice of referral, response and notice of meeting – pages 5 to 26 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and presenting officer representations – pages 27 to 38 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 40 to 73 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 74 to 79 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”). 5 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Pierce on 21 June 2025 as well as an amended statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Pierce on 1 November 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 Pierce for the allegation 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 public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Pierce was employed as a teacher of mathematics and PE at The Featherstone Academy (“the School”) from 1 September 2019. On or around 26 August 2021, a police investigation commenced into serious child protection allegations against Mr Pierce regarding sexual communication with a child. Mr Pierce was employed by the School until his resignation on 16 March 2022. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On 3 May 2024, you were convicted at Leeds Crown Court of the offences of: a. 1 count of Distribute and indecent photograph/pseudo-photograph of a child; b. 1 count of Offender 18 or over cause a child under 13 to watch/look at an image of sexual activity; c. 2 counts of Cause/Incite a girl under 13 to engage in sexual activity – no penetration. In the amended statement of agreed facts, Mr Pierce admitted that, on 3 May 2024, he was convicted at Leeds Crown Court of the offences as set out in the allegation. 6 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE He accepted that he was sentenced to imprisonment for a total of six years, that he was ordered to pay a court surcharge of £190 and that he was made the subject of a sexual harm prevention order. The panel was provided with the certificate of conviction and accepted it as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily applied by the conviction. The certificate confirmed that Mr Pierce had been convicted on 3 May 2024 at Leeds Crown Court of the offences as set out in the allegation and that he was sentenced on 27 June 2024 as accepted by Mr Pierce in the statement of agreed facts. The panel was provided with the sentencing remarks. The panel noted that the first victim (Pupil A) [REDACTED]. Those offences began when he made contact with her via Snapchat, having specifically searched out her profile. Mr Pierce made contact under a pseudonym and lied about his age, saying that he was 16 years of age. He engaged in what the Judge described as “classic grooming behaviour to gain her trust” and sent her photographs which purported to be of him but who were, in fact, images of young boys aged 16 or 17. The victim started to express doubts as to whether he was the person in the images, and he became angry. He added some of her friends onto Snapchat, and one of her friends blocked him because she suspected that he was older. Mr Pierce continued to contact Pupil A and progressed to asking for intimate pictures. Pupil A was concerned regarding showing her body and about the images being leaked. Mr Pierce first requested photographs of her legs which she sent to him, then her bare legs, which she sent after some hesitation. He then asked for photographs of her bottom. Pupil A did not want to do this, and he encouraged her to send them with her clothes on. Again, she repeated that she did not want to. Mr Pierce became angry and threatened to block her and tell her friends that she had been sending things that she had not and that he and Pupil A had had sexual activity. One of the offences referred to in allegation 1c related to an occasion one night when Pupil A said that she would send an image but told him that she was crying. Mr Pierce said that there was no need to cry because he would not send the image to anyone else, and she sent a photograph of herself naked from the waist up to her neck. Mr Pierce commented that she was beautiful. Mr Pierce then sent her a photograph of his erect penis with his face obscured by an emoji. This was the offence referred to in allegation 1b. The following morning, Mr Pierce asked for more photographs of Pupil A’s bottom. She stated that she did not want to do this and again he made threats to block her and tell her friends, saying that he had retained copies of the images she had previously sent, and sent her a video which showed the photograph Pupil A had sent of her legs. At that point, 7 OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE OFFICIAL - FOR PUBLIC RELEASE Pupil A said that she was going to block and unfriend Mr Pierce and he told her that she had to send further images or he was going to send those pictures out. Pupil A sent a photograph of her bottom, wearing knickers. At the time of this conversation, Pupil A was at her [REDACTED] and was crying. She told her [REDACTED] what was happening and Pupil A deleted her Snapchat account. A few days later she created another with a different name. Mr Pierce found her again and requested to be friends using an account with a different pseudonym. Pupil A thought this person was the brother of someone in school with that surname. That reassured her and she accepted his friend request. Soon after, Mr Pierce sent her a message saying that he had found her, and that she should not block him or delete her account. Pupil A responded that what he was doing was illegal, that she had [REDACTED] about him sending images to her friends. His response stated “Listen to what I’m saying carefully, I won’t say anything if you keep me on here, but block me again and I will. I was fucking fuming…” Pupil A responded that she would do nothing for him. He responded that he would send her a video of him deleting the images and that they could carry on where they had left off. She replied that [REDACTED] and that she had lied about her age and was, in fact, [REDACTED]. This was a fact known to Mr Pierce, him having sought out Pupil A in the first instance. Mr Pierce then moved to Pupil A’s friend, Pupil B and sent her the photograph of Pupil A where she was naked from neck to waist and told Pupil B to tell Pupil A that if she did not unblock him, he would send that ph