Perverted Dunstable teacher struck off for life for sexual messages to what he thought was a 13-year-old girl

A perverted Dunstable teacher has been banned from the country’s classrooms for life after exchanging sexual messages on social media and over the phone with someone he thought was a 13-year-old girl, but was in fact an undercover police officer.

Dev Sagoo, 69, taught drama at the Queensbury Academy. In an exchange of messages he, among other things, suggested the "teenager" join him for a drive into the countryside to park up, kiss, cuddle and carry out sexual acts on each other. He also suggested meeting in a hotel for sex and requested that she engage in sexual acts while he performed a sexual act on himself.

Now, after disciplinary proceedings before a Teaching Regulation Agency (TRA) disciplinary hearing, Mr Sagoo has been struck off for life.

He admitted the allegations against him and admitted that his conduct amounted to unacceptable behaviour which could bring the teaching profession into disrepute. He was given a police caution for his behaviour in February 2020.

The disciplinary panel was told that he was employed at the Academy from November 2017 until April 2019, the month he was arrested by police over his behaviour.

The disciplinary panel said in its findings that it considered that banning Mr Sagoo from teaching was both “proportionate and appropriate.”

They said the messages he had sent had been “graphic and sexually motivated.”

In many cases where teachers are banned the way is left open for them to seek to have the ban lifted after a set period of time. But in this case the panel said they considered there should be no provision for Mr Sagoo to seek to have the ban lifted.

Agreeing and imposing the life-time ban TRA decision maker, Sarah Buxcey said she considered that it was in the public interest that Mr Sagoo should be banned and continued: “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, a number of factors mean that a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the graphic and sexually motivated communication with what could have been a 13-year-old child and the potential impact on future pupils well-being and public confidence.

“I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest.”

It is open to Mr Sagoo to mount a High Court challenge against the decision.

The report noted that the misconduct took place outside the education setting.

Queensbury Academy have been approached for comment.