Mr Ronan Preston

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 Ronan Preston

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 11 December 2025 to 12 December 2025

Outcome type: No order made

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 Ronan Preston formerly employed in London, 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 Ronan Preston: Professional conduct panel hearing outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 10 3 Professional conduct panel hearing decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Ronan Preston TRA reference: 23744 Date of determination: 12 December 2025 Former employer: Ursuline High School, London Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 11 and 12 December 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Ronan Preston. The panel members were Mr Adnan Qureshi (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Claire Shortt (teacher panellist) and Ms Shelley Barlow-Ward (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr John Lucarotti of Blake Morgan LLP Solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges. Mr Ronan Preston was present and represented by Mr Austin Welch. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of hearing dated 29 August 2025. The allegation to Mr Preston was as follows: You are guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as a Teacher of Religious Education at Ursuline High School (“the School”): 1. Between on or around 19 January 2024 and on or around 22 April 2024 you posted offensive and/or inflammatory comments on X, a social media platform, as set out in Schedule 1. Schedule 1 a. 19 January 2024 - “So yes October 7 was a justified act of resistance under a brutal and crushing occupation”. b. 19 January 2024 - “Alan, your attempt to think critically here would make sense only if #Palestinians went in ships and forcibly brought white European Jews to #Palestine to work as slaves and then struggled to live with them when civil rights became a thing! White European Jews came as colonisers”. c. 25 January 2024 - “I’m delighted to infirm you monsters #Hamas committed no crime. @IsrealinIreland. Their actions were entirely legitimate resistance to a criminal state masquerading as Jewish, colonising their country!” d. 1 March 2024 - “Yes we will and are ALL praying for the soldiers of destiny #HAMAS. May God grand them victory in their homeland over the grotesque, barbaric, idol worshipping invaders @IDF”. e. 26 March 2024 - “You mean #Hamas and #Hezbollah freedom fighters and defenders of humanity”. f. 31 March 2024 - “Glory to #Hamas and freedom for humanity [praying hands emojis] victory over the imperialist racists! The destruction of the racist state of #Israel is coming soon”. g. 8 April 2024 - “We stand shoulder to shoulder with #Hamas #Palestine who have been invaded by American and European colonisers masquerading as a Jewish state”. h. 11 April 2024 - “May their deaths be an inspiration to the cause of #Hamas and the #Palestinians against this great satanic evil the world faces”. i. 22 April 2024 - “#Hamas are not terrorists, they are resistance to occupation. #Israel is not a true Jewish state, but an inversion and perversion to Judaism. It’s stated goal is rebuild the Temple – to erect a fslse Messianic state in rebellion of G-d. Without justice prayers are in vain Amos 5”. >> 5 Mr Preston admitted the allegation, both in terms of the facts alleged and that he was guilty of unprofessional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 4 to 5 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response – pages 6 to 13 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 14 to 21 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 22 to 255 Section 5: Teacher’s documents – pages 256 to 283 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 Procedures. Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from two witnesses: • [REDACTED] – Witness A • Mr Preston Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: Findings of fact In light of the unequivocal admissions by Mr Preston, the evidence of [REDACTED] and the documentary evidence, the panel found the following factual allegation against Mr Preston proved: 1. Between on or around 19 January 2024 and on or around 22 April 2024 you posted offensive and/or inflammatory comments on X, a social media platform, as set out in Schedule 1. 6 The panel noted that the relevant factual background was as follows: Mr Preston was a Religious Education (“RE”) Teacher at the School. He was employed in this role between September 2017 and 19 July 2024. As part of his role, Mr Preston was responsible for the coordination of key stage 4. On 23 April 2024, the School received an email, which was marked for the attention of [REDACTED], who was the headteacher of the School. The email raised concerns regarding Mr Preston, stating that he was an open supporter of a prescribed terrorist group, namely, Hamas. The email also attached screenshots of posts made on the social media platform X, by username ‘[REDACTED]’, on 26 March, 31 March and 8 April 2024. The email stated that Mr Preston was the person behind username ‘[REDACTED]’. The content of the posts related to the Israel Palestine conflict and contained comments that were supportive of Hamas, critical of Israel and referenced Jewish people. These posts were largely posted in response to posts made by others. On the same day as receiving the email, [REDACTED] spoke to Mr Preston with regards to the above concerns. [REDACTED] showed the screenshots to Mr Preston and asked him whether he recognised them. Mr Preston stated that he recognised the posts, he had made them, they were a mistake, and he had since deleted them. He also apologised. He maintained this position throughout the subsequent internal investigation. On 19 July 2024, following a disciplinary hearing, Mr Preston was dismissed from his employment at the School. [REDACTED] evidence detailed the various investigative steps taken by the School in light of the posts. He noted that Mr Preston had been consistent in accepting responsibility for what he had done and apologising for its impact on the school. [REDACTED] further informed the panel that Mr Preston had been an excellent and conscientious teacher in the seven years that he had worked at the school and that the allegations in relation to the posts were completely out of character. Mr Preston’s own evidence to the panel was that he was “mortified” and “ashamed” by his conduct in early 2024 and recognised that his posts were “abhorrent”, “ill-informed” and “highly offensive.” In his witness statement, he stated that at the relevant time he had become “rather consumed” with the events in Israel and Palestine and that he had “struggled to look beyond the scenes being portrayed.” Mr Preston told the panel that, at the time he made the posts, he had been working long hours at the School and that he had become socially isolated. He described the posts as 7 an “emotional” response to what he was learning about events in the Middle East and that he greatly regretted both what he had posted and the manner in which he had done so. Mr Preston further informed the panel that, following the loss of his job at the School, he had returned to Ireland (where he had originally undertaken teacher training) and had been working there as a substitute teacher. He indicated that he had carried out significant amounts of reflective learning and had read widely on the subject of the Palestine Israel conflict. In addition, he had completed extensive training in relation to radicalisation, including ‘Prevent’, ‘Flick radicalisation’, and Smart Horizon online safety training. He had also explored these issues within the context of face-to-face counselling. He stated that this had all led to a profound realisation on his part as to the inaccuracy and offensiveness of his posts. Mr Preston explained why he thought that the allegations against him amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. He stated that he should not have been engaging with that sort of subject in the way that he did online. He stated that he should instead have been “modelling rational and constructive engagement.” Mr Preston told the panel that he wished to apologise unreservedly to the Jewish community, the School and its community, the TRA and anyone else affected by his posts. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct / conduct that might bring the profession into disrepute Having found the factual allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether this amounted to unprofessional conduct and / or conduct that might bring the profession into disrepute. It noted that Mr Preston had admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct but acknowledged that this was ultimately a matter of judgement for the panel itself. In doing so, the panel had regard to Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers (“the Advice”) and Teachers’ Standards, Guidance for school leaders, school staff and governing bodies (“the Standards”). The panel first considered whether Mr Preston’s admitted conduct involved breaches of the Standards. It noted that Part Two of the Standards stated: “Teachers uphold public tr