Mr Miguel Pastor

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 Miguel Pastor

Teacher reference number: 1788433

Teacher's date of birth: 9 September 1986

Location teacher worked: Reading, South East England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 September 2025

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 Miguel Pastor formerly employed in Reading, South East 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.

Mr Miguel Pastor: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education September 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 7 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 17 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 19 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Miguel Pastor Teacher ref number: 1788433 Teacher date of birth: 9 September 1986 TRA reference: 18485 Date of determination: 26 September 2025 Former employer: Uteach Ltd (recruitment agency), placed at St Dominic Savio Primary School, Reading Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 th September 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Miguel Pastor (“Mr Pastor”). The panel members were Miss Sue Davies (lay panellist – in the chair), Miss Amy Howe (teacher panellist) and Mr Suhel Ahmed (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Carly Hagedorn of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Wen Yeap of Browne Jacobson LLP. Mr Pastor was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 9 May 2025. It was alleged that Mr Pastor was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed as a supply teacher at St Dominic Savio Primary School: 1. In or around 2019, he engaged in activity which was inappropriate and/or demonstrated a sexual interest in children in that he; a. sent sexually explicit messages via KIK to a person whom he had reason to believe was 9 years old; b. engaged and/or continued online message communication on KIK with a person whom he had reason to believe was 9 years old; c. sent sexually explicit messages via KIK to a person whom he had reason to believe was 13 years old; d. engaged and/or continued online message communication on KIK with a person whom he had reason to believe was 13 years old. 2. His behaviour as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. In the absence of a response from the teacher, the allegations are not admitted. 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 – 5 to 18 Section 2: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 20 to 25 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 27 to 212 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 2018, (the “Procedures”). 5 Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A, [REDACTED] Witness B, [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 Pastor was employed as a supply teacher via a recruitment agency called Uteach and was placed at St Dominic Savio Catholic Primary School (“the School”) in December 2018. Mr Pastor was a year 3 supply teacher at the School. On 25 June 2019, Mr Pastor was approached by a ‘paedophile hunting’ group (“the Group”) as he was walking to work (the School) in the morning. The incident was video recorded by the Group and live streamed on social media. This type of group pose as children online to try and lure adults who attempt to cause or incite children to engage in sexual activity. The Group asked Mr Pastor questions about being a teacher and messaging children under the age of 18. Shortly thereafter the police arrived and arrested Mr Pastor. Mr Pastor was interviewed in respect of the allegations raised by the Group and was conditionally bailed. The Group attended the School’s reception but were asked to leave. Mr Pastor did not attend the School following this incident, and the School contacted Uteach to explain that it would no longer require Mr Pastor’s services. The bail conditions were removed in September 2019 following the police determination that the conditions were no longer required, and no further action was taken. 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: 6 1. In or around 2019, you engaged in activity which was inappropriate and/or demonstrated a sexual interest in children in that you; a. sent sexually explicit messages via KIK to a person whom you had reason to believe was 9 years old; The panel determined to proceed in the absence of Mr Pastor after carefully considering an application by the presenting officer and receiving legal advice. In the absence of a written response from Mr Pastor, the allegation was not admitted. The panel noted that in the police video interview Mr Pastor admitted to using the profile name “Drackon Axel” for his KIK account. During oral evidence, the presenting officer took Witness A to one of the ‘selfie’ photographs sent by “Drackon Axel” as part of the KIK messages. Witness A stated that the ‘selfie’ photograph was of Mr Pastor. Witness B also stated during the hearing that during the police interview “Mr Pastor confirmed that he had sent those messages.” The panel was satisfied from the above evidence that Mr Pastor was using a KIK account with the profile name “Drackon Axel” and that there was no evidence to suggest otherwise. The panel had sight of the messages from “Drackon Axel” to the individual whom he had reason to believe was 9 years old (“Individual A”). Mr Pastor initiated contact with Individual A and asked “How are you doing?? Where are you from??” Individual A responded, “I’m 9 from Manchester Wbu.” Mr Pastor replied “I’m a bit older. I’m 32 and I live in Reading. I hope my age doesn’t bother you.” The panel noted that Individual A had openly stated their age to Mr Pastor. At no point did Mr Pastor appear concerned about communicating with a 9-year-old from his messaging which quickly progressed into a sexually explicit conversation. The panel noted the following extract of the conversation between Mr Pastor and Individual A: Mr Pastor: “Have you ever kissed a guy/boy before?? Individual A: No have you Mr Pastor: Yes, several girls… And other things… 7 Individual A: What things Mr Pastor: Well… Things like touching each other… Kissing very passionately. Or even having sex Individual A: [emoji] u done that Mr Pastor: Yes. It’s very fun Individual A: I thought only mums and dads do that to have baby’s Mr Pastor: Nop Individual A: [emoji] Mr Pastor: Anyone can do it… And also masturbating. Haven’t you heard of that?? Have you tried masturbating?? Individual A: What is it Mr Pastor: Is to give yourself pleasure by inserting your finger in your vagina. Just like a pennis would do when having sex Individual A: I not done that Mr Pastor: Well, if you do it repeatedly (in, out, in, out, in out…) you will start to like it and you’re vagina will stay to get wet. I think now you are curious amor that, right?? About* that… In the police interview, Mr Pastor stated that the “younger 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. We talked for a couple of sentences about that.” In the police video interview Mr Pastor explained that he thought Individual A was an adult pretending to be a child due to the spelling and language used in the messaging. Mr Pastor described Individual’s A’s messaging as “adult”. He explained that in general he wanted to ‘unmask’ individuals as he was concerned about how many people lied about their identity on these types of platforms. However, when challenged about the fact that he didn’t seem to stop conversations when he felt people were lying, he then stated that he was then talking to the ‘true person’ who was often someone lacking in confidence and wanted to make them feel good about themselves. The panel noted that there were inconsistencies in Mr Pastor’s account to the police. In particular, he did not challenge the fact that Individual A said that they were 9 years old and also continued to address them as if they were a child despite saying that he knew 8 they were an adult. In addition, when asked by the police why he used KIK he confirmed that his motive was sexual gratification. The panel was not convinced by Mr Pastor’s account that he ‘knew for sure’ that Individual A was an adult. The panel determined that the sexually explicit nature of these messages was clearly inappropriate, when Mr Pastor would have had no way of knowing for sure that the individual who he was messaging was an adult in circumstances where Individual A had repeatedly stated that she was 9 years old. The panel found allegation 1(a) proved. b. engaged and/or continued online message communication on KIK with a person whom you had reason to believe was 9 years old; In the absence of a response from Mr Pastor, the allegation was not admitted. The panel had sight of the messages from Mr Pastor to the individual whom he had reason to believe was 9 years old (“Individual A”). The panel again noted the extracts of the conversation between Mr Pastor and Individual A (as set out in allegation 1a above). The panel had sight of the timings of the messages between Mr Pastor and Individual A and noted that the messages continued over a period of at least two days. On the second day of messaging, Mr Pastor brought up the sexual topic again by saying to Individual A “Did you think a lot on the conversation we had yesterday??” Mr Pastor then went on to ask Individual A “…you have never played with your vagina??” The panel determined that the continued sexually explicit nature of these messages was clearly inappropriate, when Mr Pastor would have had no way of knowing for sure that the individual who he was messaging was an adult in circumstances where Individual A had stated that she was 9 years old. The panel found allegation 1(b) proved. c. sent sexually explicit messages via KIK to a person whom you had reason to believe was 13 years old; In the absence of a response from Mr Pastor, the allegation was not admitted. The panel had sight of the messages from Mr Pastor to the individual whom he had reason to believe was 13 years old (“Individual B”). The panel noted that as part of the KIK messages between Mr Pastor and Individual B, Individual B said “I’m 13 Sheffield. 14 in July.” 9 Mr Pastor responded with “I’m a bit older… I’m 32. I how that’s not a problem. *Hope”. The panel noted that Individual B repeated her age of 13 throughout the messages with Mr Pastor. Individual B stated “I’m 13 tho is that ok”, to which Mr Pastor responded “Of course…” The panel noted that Mr Pastor complimented Individual B on her appearance after asking for a photograph, stating “very sexy”. Later in the communications, Mr Pastor initiated a sexually explicit conversation with Individual B. The panel noted the following extract: Mr Pastor: “You haven’t done other things right?? Individual B: What things Mr Pastor: Like…seeing a guy naked or having……sex with him…?? Individual B: I never seen a guy naked n never done sex stuff Mr Pastor: Ok, sorry for asking Individual B: It ok Mr Pastor: Did that make you feel uncomfortable?? [emoji] Individual B: No. Why. U just asked me n I told u [emoji] Mr Pastor: I don’t know, some people don’t like to talk about sex more anything related. Individual B: I never talked bout it. To anyone else Mr Pastor: Really??? [emoji] You look so sexy and hot I would have imagined you would have done it but now. Individual B: [ILLEGIBLE] Mr Pastor: What do you mean?? Individual B: To do sex stuff at 13 Mr Pastor: Well… the first time I kissed someone I didn’t tell my parents, obviously, nor when I had sex. Or masturbated…etc… Individual B: Only boys do that stuff. Boys call it a wank at school [emoji] Mr Pastor: What… masturbate?? 10 Individual B: Yea The panel also noted the following extract: Mr Pastor: You are telling me you have never tried it?? [emojis] Individual B: No I haven’t Mr Pastor: Oh, ok… Can I ask you something?? Individual B: Do girls my age do it Mr Pastor: Yeah…I know it for a fact Individual B: Ok Mr Pastor: Are you thinking about it?? Sorry I think I made you feel uncomfortable [emoji] I’m really sorry if I offended you, princess… In the police video interview Mr Pastor explained that he thought he was speaking to an adult despite being told by Individual B that she was 13 years of age. He explained that in general he wanted to ‘unmask’ individuals as he was concerned about how many people lied about their identity on these types of platforms. However, when challenged about the fact that he didn’t seem to stop conversations when he felt people were lying, he then stated that he was then talking to the ‘true person’ who was often someone lacking in confidence and wanted to make them feel good about themselves. The panel noted that there were inconsistencies in Mr Pastor’s account to the police. The panel was not convinced by Mr Pastor’s account that he knew he was messaging an adult. The panel determined that the sexually explicit nature of these messages was clearly inappropriate, when Mr Pastor would have had no way of knowing for sure that the individual who he was messaging was an adult in circumstances where Individual B had repeatedly stated that she was 13 years old. The panel found allegation 1(c) proved. d. engaged and/or continued online message communication on KIK with a person whom you had reason to believe was 13 years old In the absence of a response from Mr Pastor, the allegation was not admitted. The panel had sight of the messages from Mr Pastor to the individual whom he had reason to believe was 13 years old (“Individual B”). 11 The panel again noted the extracts of the conversation between Mr Pastor and Individual B (as set out in allegation 1c above). The panel had sight of the timings of the messages between Mr Pastor and Individual B and noted that the messages continued over a period of a few days. The panel noted that the sexually explicit messages from Mr Pastor were later in the conversation after firstly messaging Individual B and complimenting her on her appearance. The panel determined that the continued sexually explicit nature of these messages was clearly inappropriate, when Mr Pastor would have had no way of knowing for sure that the individual who he was messaging was an adult in circumstances where Individual B had repeatedly stated that she was 13 years old. The panel found allegation 1(d) proved. 2. Your behaviour as may be found proven at Allegation 1 above was conduct of a sexual nature and/or was sexually motivated. The panel considered this allegation in respect Mr Pastor’s proven conduct in allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 1(d). In the absence of a response from Mr Pastor, the allegation was not admitted. The panel noted that in the case of Basson v GMC (2018), it stated that “the state of a person’s mind is not something that can be proved by direct observation. It can only be proved by inference or deduction from the surrounding evidence”. It was also stated in this case that a sexual motive means the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a future sexual relationship. Mr Pastor stated during the police interview that he was “addicted” to masturbation and pornography and talking to other people about sex. He said, “sometimes I can’t see what is right and what is wrong.” The panel noted that Mr Pastor was asked in his police interview whether his communication with Individual A and Individual B was done for the purpose of sexual gratification, to which Mr Pastor stated, ‘yes’. Mr Pastor was asked during his video interview with the police whether he was sexually aroused when he was messaging the two individuals. Mr Pastor did not give a definitive answer but said “I don’t remember. Maybe”. The panel determined that Mr Pastor’s proven conduct in these allegations was done in pursuit of sexual gratification. 12 The panel again noted the extracts from the KIK messages as set out in allegations 1(a) and 1(c) above and determined that the nature of Mr Pastor’s explicit communications with Individual A and Individual B were sexual. The panel asked itself whether on the balance of probabilities reasonable persons would think the words and actions found proven could be sexual. The panel considered that for the reasons outlined above, there was evidence to suggest that the teacher’s purpose for using such words in his messages with Individual A and Individual B was sexual. The panel therefore found that Mr Pastor’s conduct was of a sexual nature and was sexually motivated. The panel found allegation 2 proved. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found all of the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Pastor, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Pastor was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach… • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. 13 The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Pastor, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Pastor was in breach of the following provision: • Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is everyone’s responsibility. Everyone who comes into contact with children and their families has a role to play. In order to fulfil this responsibility effectively, all professionals should make sure their approach is child-centred. This means that they should consider, at all times, what is in the best interests of the child. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Pastor, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel considered that Mr Pastor was in breach of the following provision: • Everyone who comes into contact with children and families has a role to play. Safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is defined for the purposes of this guidance as: • preventing impairment of children's health or development • ensuring that children grow up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care The panel also considered whether Mr Pastor’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that the offence of sexual communication with a child was relevant. The panel noted that some KIK messages would have been sent outside the education setting. Despite this, Mr Pastor’s proven conduct still affected the way he fulfilled his teaching role or may have led to pupils being exposed to, or influenced by, the behaviour in a harmful way, given the serious safeguarding concerns arising from his misconduct. The panel noted that some KIK messages were sent by Mr Pastor whilst he was on the School’s premises, as there were ‘selfie’ photographs of Mr Pastor with the School lanyard around his neck and he appeared to be in a classroom environment. Witness A was taken to one of these images during his oral evidence. Witness A stated that Mr Pastor was wearing the School ‘staff’ lanyard and that the background “could well be the classroom” in which Mr Pastor taught pupils. Whilst the selfie image did not contain photographs of pupils, the panel noted the inherent risks associated with taking a selfie photograph on School premises and 14 sending this via a messaging service on the KIK platform. For example, the potential to disclose personal data of pupils or colleagues from the background environment e.g. names of pupils on a board etc. The panel determined that Mr Pastor’s conduct in sending sexually explicit messages to individuals whom he had reason to believe were 9 and 13 years old was a significant breach of his safeguarding responsibilities and in complete contrast to the standards expected of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Pastor amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Pastor was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Pastor’s actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Pastor’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Pastor was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of sexual communication with a child was relevant. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. The panel considered that Mr Pastor’s conduct could potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. The panel also noted that as the paedophile hunter group (“the Group”) live streamed their video of apprehending Mr Pastor on his way to work on social media, Mr Pastor’s conduct had serious consequences for the wider School community, including reputational damage to the School. Witness A provided oral evidence at the hearing explaining the impact that the video had on the School including holding safeguarding assemblies and being required to handle the matter sensitively to reassure parents and staff. 15 For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Pastor’s actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Pastor, which involved findings of sexually motivated and inappropriate conduct for sending sexually explicit messages to individuals whom he had reason to believe were 9 and 13 years of age, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Pastor was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Pastor was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Pastor in the profession. The panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Pastor in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. 16 The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Pastor. The panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were: • serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards; • misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature and/or that use or exploit the trust, knowledge or influence derived from the individual’s professional position; • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE). Even though the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was evidence that Mr Pastor’s actions were deliberate. Mr Pastor stated in his police interview that the purpose of messaging Individuals A and B was for sexual gratification. There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Pastor was acting under extreme duress, e.g. a physical threat or significant intimidation. The panel was provided with limited evidence to show that he did have a previously good history. The panel noted that Mr Pastor gained qualified teacher status on 25 August 2018 and would have been a newly qualified teacher when placed at the School. Witness A described Mr Pastor as a “lovely guy” and was “kind, caring and had his faith”. Witness A said that the “children responded well to him and there were no safeguarding concerns”. Witness A said that the School “worked hard to get him up to the standard we wanted him to be.” 17 There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Pastor demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or had contributed significantly to the education sector. Mr Pastor did not provide any recent statements of good character or recent references for the purpose of the TRA proceedings. The panel had sight of two brief ‘tick box’ employment references, one of which commented on him as “a responsible and committed teacher”. The panel noted that Mr Pastor was cooperative with police during interview, however, the panel noted that he did not appear to grasp the seriousness of his misconduct and did not show a clear level of insight or remorse for his conduct. The panel took the view that Mr Pastor had an inadequate understanding of safeguarding. Mr Pastor explained that he thought he was speaking to adults despite being repeatedly told by Individual A and Individual B that they were 9 and 13 years of age respectively. The panel was not at all convinced by Mr Pastor’s response as he had no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals that he was speaking to were not children. Mr Pastor stated during the police interview that he was “addicted” to masturbation and pornography and talking to other people about sex. He said, “sometimes I can’t see what is right and what is wrong.” Mr Pastor said that he had previously received counselling and that he had discussed the matter with his priest. The panel was not provided with any evidence to show that Mr Pastor had attended counselling appointments to seek to address his “addiction”. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Pastor of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Pastor. Mr Pastor’s sexually motivated conduct with individuals whom he had reason to believe were 9 and 13 years of age was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. 18 The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These include: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons… • any sexual misconduct involving a child. The panel noted that whilst Mr Pastor’s misconduct did not actually involve children as the paedophile hunter group (“the Group”) were adults posing as children aged 9 and 13 years old, this did not excuse the fact that Mr Pastor had no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals were not children. As Mr Pastor had no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals were not children, his serious sexual misconduct had the potential to result in significant harm, if Individual A and Individual B had in fact been the ages they had said they were. The panel noted the lack of mitigating circumstances, including Mr Pastor’s lack of understanding during his police interview for the potential impact his misconduct could have had on the individuals, had they been the ages they said they were. The panel noted that despite being informed that the individuals were 9 and 13 years old, Mr Pastor showed a complete and utter disregard for the age of the individuals and quickly went on to initiate sexually explicit communications with the individuals. The panel noted that whilst Mr Pastor appeared to be quite adamant in the police video interview that he knew the individuals were adults, the panel was of the view that there was no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals were not children. The panel determined that there was a real risk of repeated behaviour given Mr Pastor’s lack of insight and understanding in relation to the severity of his misconduct during his police interview, including the potential safeguarding risks. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provision for a review period. 19 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Miguel Pastor should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Pastor is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach… • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Pastor involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’ and/or involved breaches of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Pastor fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher engaging in sexually motivated and sexually explicit communications with persons he had reason to believe were children. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the 20 profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Pastor, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel provides this observation: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Pastor, which involved findings of sexually motivated and inappropriate conduct for sending sexually explicit messages to individuals whom he had reason to believe were 9 and 13 years of age, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, given the serious findings.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel noted that Mr Pastor was cooperative with police during interview, however, the panel noted that he did not appear to grasp the seriousness of his misconduct and did not show a clear level of insight or remorse for his conduct. The panel took the view that Mr Pastor had an inadequate understanding of safeguarding. Mr Pastor explained that he thought he was speaking to adults despite being repeatedly told by Individual A and Individual B that they were 9 and 13 years of age respectively. The panel was not at all convinced by Mr Pastor’s response as he had no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals that he was speaking to were not children. Mr Pastor stated during the police interview that he was “addicted” to masturbation and pornography and talking to other people about sex. He said, “sometimes I can’t see what is right and what is wrong.” Mr Pastor said that he had previously received counselling and that he had discussed the matter with his priest. The panel was not provided with any evidence to show that Mr Pastor had attended counselling appointments to seek to address his “addiction”.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Pastor has developed full insight into and remorse for his actions means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. 21 I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel makes this observation: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Pastor was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher sending sexually explicit messages to individuals he had reason to believe were children in this case and the very negative impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Pastor himself. The panel records the following: “There was no evidence to suggest that Mr Pastor demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal and professional conduct or had contributed significantly to the education sector. Mr Pastor did not provide any recent statements of good character or recent references for the purpose of the TRA proceedings.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Pastor from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the very serious nature of the misconduct found. The panel notes the following: “As Mr Pastor had no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals were not children, his serious sexual misconduct had the potential to result in significant harm, if Individual A and Individual B had in fact been the ages they had said they were.” I have also placed considerable weight on the panel’s comments concerning the lack of evidence of insight or remorse. 22 I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Pastor has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “The panel noted the lack of mitigating circumstances, including Mr Pastor’s lack of understanding during his police interview for the potential impact his misconduct could have had on the individuals, had they been the ages they said they were. The panel noted that despite being informed that the individuals were 9 and 13 years old, Mr Pastor showed a complete and utter disregard for the age of the individuals and quickly went on to initiate sexually explicit communications with the individuals. The panel noted that whilst Mr Pastor appeared to be quite adamant in the police video interview that he knew the individuals were adults, the panel was of the view that there was no way of knowing with any certainty that the individuals were not children. The panel determined that there was a real risk of repeated behaviour given Mr Pastor’s lack of insight and understanding in relation to the severity of his misconduct during his police interview, including the potential safeguarding risks. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provision for a review period.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate response to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that I agree with the panel that allowing a review period would not be sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the very serious nature of the misconduct found as well as the lack of compelling evidence of insight and remorse and the consequent intolerable risk of repetition. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. 23 This means that Mr Miguel Pastor is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Pastor shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Pastor has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 1 October 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.