Mr Philip Bayley

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 Philip Bayley

Teacher reference number: 0988788

Teacher's date of birth: 6 June 1989

Location teacher worked: Lancashire, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 25 June 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 Philip Bayley, formerly employed in Lancashire, North 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.

Mr Philip Bayley: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education June 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of Fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 15 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Philip John Bayley Teacher ref number: 0988788 Teacher date of birth: 06 June 1989 TRA reference: 23661 Date of determination: 25 June 2025 Former employer: St Michael’s Church of England High School, Lancashire Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 25 June 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Philip Bayley. The panel members were Ms Amanda Godfrey (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Wendy Shannon (lay panellist) and Mr Paul Burton (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Helen Kitchen of Blake Morgan 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 Bayley that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Bayley provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of relevant offences. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of a presenting officer on behalf of the TRA, Mr Bayley or any representative on Mr Bayley’s behalf. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 9 May 2025, as amended by agreement between the parties in advance of the hearing. The panel noted that the amendments did not substantively impact on the factual basis and nature of the allegations, which remaining unchanged, but ensured the accuracy and clarity of the allegations. The amendments reflected issues which had been addressed, and changes sought, by Mr Bayley. No detriment would be occasioned to Mr Bayley by the agreed amendment. It was alleged that Mr Philip John Bayley was convicted of one or more relevant offences, namely: 1. On or around 28 August 2024, he was convicted of one or more relevant offences, namely he: a) Between 4 April 2024 and 12 April 2024, at Wigan, he intentionally sent or gave photographs of a person’s genitals, to a person, namely Child A, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and being reckless as to whether that person would be caused alarm, distress or humiliation contrary to Section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; b) Between 4 April 2024 and 12 April 2024, at Wigan, being a person aged 18 or over, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, intentionally attempted to communicate with Child A, a person under 16 who he did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being sexual, namely sending Kik messages and snapchat messages. Contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Mr Bayley had made clear admissions to the facts of allegations 1a) and 1b), including to his having been convicted of those offences. In relation to allegation 1, including 1a) and 1b), Mr Bayley admitted that the offences of which he was convicted were relevant offences. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of materials which included 1. A bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and List of Key People – pages 4 to 5 5 Section 2: Notice of Hearing and Response to Notice of Hearing – pages 6 to 16 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and Presenting Officer Representations – pages 17 to 21 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 22 to 186 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 187 to 189 Section 6: Notice of Meeting – pages 190 to 191 2. A video of Mr Bayley’s police interview. In addition the panel agreed to accept the following: - A bundle of email communications between the TRA and Mr Bayley exchanged between 8 April 2025 and 19 May 2025, which included confirmation of agreement between the parties to the amendment of the allegations (7 pages). The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle and the additional bundle that the panel had decided to admit and viewed the video 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 Bayley on 10 April 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Bayley 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 interest of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Philip Bayley was a Teacher of English at St Michael’s Church of England High School (‘the School’) from 1 September 2023. The main duties of his role included 6 teaching Key Stage 3 and Key Stage 4 and acting as a tutor for a Year 9 tutorial. The School is a stand-alone academy school for pupil from ages 11-16 years. Between 4 and 12 April 2024 Mr Bayley exchanged messages on Kik and Snapchat social media apps and messaging services with an individual who stated she was a 12- year-old girl. The messaging included Mr Bayley sending photographs of himself, including his genitalia, and saying that he was “kind of horny” and that she was “sexy”. On 15 April 2024, following a police sting operation, Mr Bayley was arrested on suspicion of sending an unsolicited photograph of genitalia to a person, Child A, for the purpose of sexual gratification and being reckless as to whether it would cause alarm, distress or humiliation, and, intentionally attempting to engage in sexual communication with a Child A, a person under 16 who he did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification (“the Offences”). Mr Bayley was released on bail, the conditions of which included that he did not have unsupervised contact with a child under the age of 18 unless unavoidable in daily life. On 15 April 2024 the School and the LADO became aware of Mr Bayley’s arrest and release on bail and LADO meetings were held on 18 and 29 April 2024. On 1 May 2024 Mr Bayley ceased employment at the school. On 2 May 2024 Mr Bayley was referred by the School to the TRA. On 24 July 2024, Mr Bayley was charged with the Offences. On 28 August 2024, Mr Bayley was convicted, on his own admission, of the Offences. On 18 October 2024, Mr Bayley was sentenced to a total of 6 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months and other, related, orders. Evidence considered by the Panel The panel carefully considered all of the evidence presented, including a statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Bayley. It accepted the legal advice provided. Findings of Fact The findings of fact are as follows: You have been convicted of one or more relevant offences, namely: 1. On or around 28 August 2024, you were convicted of the following offences, namely you: a) Between 4 April 2024 and 12 April 2024, at Wigan, you intentionally sent or 7 gave photographs of a person’s genitals, to a person, namely Child A, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, and being reckless as to whether that person would be caused alarm, distress or humiliation contrary to Section 66A of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; b) Between 4 April 2024 and 12 April 2024, at Wigan, being a person aged 18 or over, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, intentionally attempted to communicate with Child A, a person under 16 who you did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being sexual, namely sending Kik messages and snapchat messages. Contrary to section 1 (1) of the Criminal Attempts Act 1981. Mr Bayley admitted the facts of allegation 1, including parts 1a and 1b, in full and the panel found this allegation proven in full. The panel noted that the conviction took place following a sting operation which involved an undercover operative called Child A joining a group called halfterm#ukschoolhalfterm on the messaging platform Kik. On 4 April 2024, Child A posted a message on the group stating “Hey. All open for PM and Snap.Bored.” She received a private message from Mr Bayley using the username philbayley, and they began a private conversation in which Mr Bayley learnt that Pupil A was a 12-year-old girl. They talked about school. He told her the town where he lived and that he worked as a schoolteacher. He asked her about relationships, and stated that she needed a man instead, boys take “the piss” and “Men know how to treat a lady”. Mr Bayley sent Pupil A a selfie of himself wearing a jumper. The conversation then moved onto Snapchat with Mr Bayley creating an account named “phil6962”. The application’s location was switched on and showed Mr Bayley being at his hometown. The pair continued to talk, and photographs were exchanged, including one which showed the head and shoulders of a female with the appearance of a 12 -year-old girl. Mr Bayley told Child A that she had a beautiful smile and remarked it was a shame that he did not live closer to her to entertain her. He talked about “cute stuff”, like taking her on a trip to the zoo or the park, and about making out in the back row of the cinema. He said, “I’d love to kiss you and hold you tight, maybe while you’re sat on my lap” and “You could straddle my chest and lean over and kiss me. Bet you don’t weigh a thing”. He then sent a picture showing his erect penis covered by his underwear and said, “Sorry for ruining your innocence”. The conversation continued on 8 April 2024 and Mr Bayley sent messages such as “I’d love to take you out shopping, really spoil you”. He sent links to clothing items including a Hello Kitty pyjama set and a lace bodysuit saying “Would love to see you in something like that”. 8 On 9 April 2024 the conversation continued, talking about a day out, to which Mr Bayley says “I’d love to, but I don’t think it can happen. I’m too old and you’re too young. I’m not a bad guy. It just doesn’t look good”. He then asked for a morning selfie. The messaging includes Mr Bayley saying “You could just enjoy getting a bit hug and snuggling into me, and it’d be like a giant teddy bear”. The conversation then continued on 11 April 2024, on Snapchat. Mr Bayley sent a message saying he was bored and “kind of horny”. He sent another picture of his erect penis in boxer shorts, and messages such as “Just really turned on. Wish I had some help” and “you are so sexy”. He followed that up with two more indecent photographs, one showing an erect penis in boxer shorts, but also showing the base of his penis, and another showing his fully exposed penis. The last interaction was on 12 April 2024 and Mr Bayley sent a picture showing himself taking a shower, taken from above the showerhead, showing his top half but not his genitals. The panel noted that Mr Bayley had provided no comment at police interview but pleaded guilty at the Magistrates’ Court, where he was convicted of the Offences on 28 August 2024. His case was then passed for sentencing to the Crown Court. In sentencing on 18 October 2024, the judge took into account that: • Mr Bayley had pleaded guilty and had no previous convictions. • the conversation(s) went on for about nine days, had become sexualised “to a degree” and had contained indications of “conflicted thinking”, Mr Bayley saying things that indicated his desires but also showing that he knew he should not have engaged in the conversation and was concerned that he was doing so. • Mr Bayley had sent a number of indecent images, including a picture of his erect penis, to a person he believed to be a young girl. • whilst there were some offers of giving gifts this did not happen • although Mr Bayley asked for a selfie from the person he believed to be a young child he did not persist in this and, on the face of the messaging, it did not appear that he was intending or wishing to receive a sexual image. • Mr Bayley was a teacher who had undertaken safeguarding training and was aware of the vulnerabilities of children, and the way they communicated, which was treated as an aggravating factor. • Mr Bayley had expressed genuine remorse and disgust with himself and was 9 attending therapy to address his conduct. Mr Bayley was sentenced to a total of 6 months imprisonment suspended for 18 months with conditions including attendance at a Building Choices programme run by the probation service and completion of up to 25 days rehabilitation activity. He was also the subject of a 7-year sexual harm prevention order and was required to register with the police for 7 years. The panel accepted the admissions made by Mr Bayley to allegation 1, including its constituent parts 1a and 1b. It found these admissions to be consistent with the evidence before it. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found allegation 1, including its constituent parts 1a and 1b, proven, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of that proven allegation amounted to conviction of relevant offences. 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 Bayley in relation to the facts found proven involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Bayley 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 Having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being in accordance with statutory provision ▪ Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel noted that Mr Bayley’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education. Mr Bayley worked in a secondary education setting. He committed offences which involved sending images of his genitals to a person, Child A, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification and being reckless as to whether alarm, distress or humiliation would be caused, and, intentionally attempting to communicate with someone he believed to be a young person under 16 for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification. His actions represented a failure to act in accordance with his responsibility as a teacher to protect children. The panel noted that Mr Bayley had referenced his being a teacher in his messaging. 10 The panel considered that the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have had an impact on the safety or security of a young girl who was a member of the public if the person involved had been a 12-year-old girl, as Mr Bayley believed to be the case. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Bayley’s behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel noted that Mr Bayley’s behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment for 6 months suspended for 18 months, a 7-year sexual harm prevention order and an order requiring him to register with the police for 7 years, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. This panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning offences involving attempted sexual communication with a child and the communication of indecent images by Mr Bayley which the Advice states are likely to be considered relevant offences. The panel found the offences to be serious in nature. They involved Mr Bayley engaging in conduct that was sexual in nature for his own sexual gratification. The offences included him sending indecent images to a person he believed to be a 12-year-old child and being reckless to the harm this may have caused. Mr Bayley worked as a teacher with children of a similar age. The panel took into account the judge’s remarks, as detailed above. It noted in particular Mr Bayley’s guilty plea at the Magistrates’ Court, his having no previous convictions and his recorded remorse for his actions. It also noted the relatively short period over which the communications, which he had thought were with a young girl, had taken place. It noted that reference was made to Mr Bayley taking action to address his conduct by attending therapy. However, the panel had no more information about this issue beyond those remarks save Mr Bayley stating that there was “work that I have done and am continuing to do on myself”. The panel had no confirmation before it of whether the conditions regarding rehabilitation activity and attendance at the Building Choices programme had been met but understood this to be the case in the absence of evidence to the contrary. The panel also considered the information before it of Mr Bayley’s good teaching record, including two positive references from headteachers at two schools relating to a time prior to his being employed at the School. The panel noted, but gave limited weight to, Mr Bayley’s good teaching record. It found that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to Mr Bayley’s conviction of the offences was relevant to his ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a 11 finding that the conviction was for relevant offences was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. For these reasons the panel found that Mr Bayley had been convicted of relevant offences. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of conviction of relevant offences, 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 protection of other members of the public • the maintenance of public confidence in the profession • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Bayley, which involved his conviction of offences which involved attempted communication with, and the sending of indecent images to, someone he believed was a young girl for sexual gratification and with reckless disregard to the possible negative impact of the images upon her, the panel was clear that there was a strong public interest consideration in terms of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and protection of other members of the public. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be weakened if conduct such as that found to have been undertaken by Mr Bayley 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 Bayley was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 12 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 Bayley in the profession. Whilst there was some limited evidence before the panel of Mr Bayley’s abilities as an educator, the panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweigh any interest in retaining Mr Bayley in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher and he exploited his position of trust by making reference to his being a teacher. 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. The panel noted that a teacher’s behaviour that seeks to exploit their position of trust should be viewed very seriously in terms of its potential influence on pupils and be seen as a possible threat to the public interest. 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 Bayley. 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 Teaching Standards • the commission of serious criminal offences resulting in a conviction and a 7 years sexual harm prevention order and an order requiring him to register with the police for 7 years. • abuse of a position of trust, in relation to his referencing himself in the messaging as a teacher. • sexual misconduct, in that his actions were sexually motivated, were for his sexual gratification, and that he used his understanding of children and the way that they communicate which he had gained from his professional position. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The panel took into account the following mitigating factors: 13 • Mr Bayley’s engagement with the TRA and the admissions made in the statement of agreed facts. • that Mr Bayley had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court. • that the communications continued for a limited period of nine days. • in the court proceedings Mr Bayley had shown genuine remorse and expressed disgust at his behaviour. • Mr Bayley’s indications that he had/was attended therapy and was working to address his conduct, although the panel had no substantive information about these matters before it. • Mr Bayley’s previous good history as demonstrated by the two work references before the panel, each provided by a headteacher of a school where he had worked before joining the School. Weighed against this, and in addition to the factors identified above, the panel also took into account the following: • the serious nature of the offending behaviour committed by Mr Bayley. • that Mr Bayley had demonstrated some feeling of being conflicted, and so appeared to have some self-awareness that his actions were wrong, but he did not stop conducting himself inappropriately. • that Mr Bayley would have undertaken, at least, annual safeguarding training and was aware of the vulnerabilities of children and the way they communicated, which had been treated as an aggravating factor in his sentencing. His actions were contrary to his role in protecting and safeguarding young people. • that Mr Bayley had referenced being a teacher in his messaging. • that Mr Bayley worked with children of a similar age to Pupil A • that Mr Bayley’s actions were deliberate. • there was no suggestion that Mr Bayley was acting under duress when committing the offences. The panel went on to consider, firstly, 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. 14 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 the case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Bayley 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 Bayley. The seriousness of Mr Bayley’s offending behaviour, that he undertook his offending behaviour despite having received safeguarding training and continued despite feeling conflicted, and the risk that his actions may have represented to a child were significant factors 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. 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 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 behaviours where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. The panel noted that these include any serious sexual misconduct, e.g. where an action was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons, and any sexual misconduct involving a child. The panel found that Mr Bayley’s offending behaviour was undertaken by him for his sexual gratification, and so was sexually motivated, could have caused harm to a child if a child had been involved, and, that he had used his position as a teacher to seek to influence or exploit that child in his messaging. The panel was aware that although, in fact, no child had been involved in Mr Bayley’s offending behaviour, Mr Bayley had believed that a 12-year-old girl had been involved. In these circumstances the panel determined that Mr Bayley’s conduct should properly be categorised as serious sexual misconduct involving an individual whom Mr Bayley believed was a child and his using his position as a teacher to influence or exploit that child. This was extremely concerning behaviour and very serious in nature. 15 The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater influence and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The panel noted that that the lists of types of behaviours and cases in the Advice are not intended to be exhaustive. It considered the case on its own individual merits taking into account all of the circumstances involved. The panel took account of the mitigating factors found by the panel including the sentencing judge’s remarks that Mr Bayley had shown insight and remorse and was attending therapy, and, that in the TRA procedure Mr Bayley had admitted his actions and indicated, in his email of 8 April 2025, that he had done, and was continuing to do, work on himself. However the panel found that this limited information about Mr Bayley’s insight and regret and the steps he had taken to address his behaviours was insufficient to assure it that the risk of repetition of the same, or similar, conduct by Mr Bayley had been reduced to an acceptable level, particularly given his willingness to continue the messaging with the person he believed to be a 12 year-old child even when he had shown some feeling of being conflicted and taking into account that he had many years’ experience working as a teacher and had received safeguarding training. The absence of evidence showing that the risk of repetition had been fully addressed weighed strongly against the recommendation of a review period. 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 of the circumstances for the prohibition order to be recommended without provision for a review period. 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 a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Philip Bayley should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. 16 In particular, the panel has found that Mr Bayley 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 Having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being in accordance with statutory provision ▪ Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher being convicted of sending indecent pictures to a person he believed to be a 12 year-old child. 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 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 a relevant conviction, 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 Bayley, 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 makes the following observation: “In light of the panel’s findings against Mr Bayley, which involved his conviction of offences which involved attempted communication with, and the sending of indecent images to, someone he believed was a young girl for sexual gratification and with reckless disregard to the possible negative impact of the images upon her, the panel was clear that there was a strong public interest consideration in terms of the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils and protection of other members of the public.” 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 took account of the mitigating factors found by the panel including the sentencing judge’s remarks that Mr Bayley had shown insight and remorse and was attending therapy, and, that in the TRA procedure Mr Bayley had admitted his actions and indicated, in his email of 8 April 2025, that he had done, and was continuing to do, work on himself. 17 However the panel found that this limited information about Mr Bayley’s insight and regret and the steps he had taken to address his behaviours was insufficient to assure it that the risk of repetition of the same, or similar, conduct by Mr Bayley had been reduced to an acceptable level, particularly given his willingness to continue the messaging with the person he believed to be a 12 year-old child even when he had shown some feeling of being conflicted and taking into account that he had many years’ experience working as a teacher and had received safeguarding training.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence that Mr Bayley has developed full insight 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. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel records the following: “Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be weakened if conduct such as that found to have been undertaken by Mr Bayley was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of the fact that Mr Bayley explicitly referenced his role as a teacher in committing the misconduct found in this case and the 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 a relevant conviction, 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 Bayley himself. The panel notes Mr Bayley’s previous good history and references having had the benefit of seeing two work references, each provided by a headteacher of a school where he had worked before joining the School. A prohibition order would prevent Mr Bayley 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. 18 In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the serious nature of Mr Bayley’s misconduct, which included him sending pictures of his penis to a person he believed to be a 12 year-old girl and resulted in a sentence of imprisonment (suspended). I have also noted and given weight to the panel’s comments regarding Mr Bayley’s insight and the risk of repetition. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Bayley 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. In doing so the panel has referenced the Advice as follows: “The Advice indicates that there are certain types of behaviours where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. The panel noted that these include any serious sexual misconduct, e.g. where an action was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons, particularly where the individual has used their professional position to influence or exploit a person or persons, and any sexual misconduct involving a child.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period 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 is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the very serious nature of the misconduct found, which in my judgment constitutes behaviour incompatible with working as a teacher, as well as the lack of evidence of full insight and consequent 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. This means that Mr Philip Bayley 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 Bayley shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. 19 This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Bayley 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: 26 June 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.