Former teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering baby boy he wanted to adopt

News from the Crown Prosecution Service

A former teacher has been convicted of the sexual abuse and murder of 13-month-old Preston Davey, a baby boy who had been placed with him and his partner with a view to adoption.

Jamie Varley, 37, was found guilty at Preston Crown Court of murder, child cruelty, sexual offences, and offences relating to indecent images of children. His partner, John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, was convicted of causing or allowing the death of a child, child cruelty, and sexual assault.

Preston, who was placed with the couple at nine months old, died just four months later after being taken to hospital unconscious and in cardiac arrest. Despite the efforts of medical professionals, he was pronounced dead shortly after arrival.

During the trial, prosecutors presented evidence showing that Preston had suffered sustained physical, emotional, and sexual abuse while in the defendants' care. Medical examinations identified more than 40 injuries, including non-accidental injuries and evidence consistent with sexual assault.

A post-mortem examination concluded that Preston died as a result of acute upper airway obstruction. Expert evidence disproved claims that his death was the result of an accident and instead demonstrated a pattern of significant harm and abuse in the months leading up to his death.

The case has deeply affected safeguarding professionals across the UK and serves as a tragic reminder of the importance of maintaining a child-centred approach, professional curiosity, and robust safeguarding systems designed to protect the most vulnerable children in society.

The defendants are due to be sentenced at Preston Crown Court at a later date.

Some Thoughts

As someone who has worked in safeguarding for more than two decades, I can only reiterate that I find the abuse and murder of Preston so profoundly upsetting and feel a personal outrage.

It is impossible not to think about Preston as a little boy first and foremost. A child who should have been safe. A child who should have been protected by the adults entrusted with his care- especially those who were ‘seeking a family’.

Whilst there will rightly be scrutiny, review, and learning in the months ahead, I believe these cases remind us of something fundamental: safeguarding is never just about compliance and at times compliance can and will be disguised.

Whenever a child dies as a result of abuse, there is a natural desire to understand how such harm could have occurred and whether there were opportunities to intervene sooner. It is important that any future learning is informed by evidence rather than speculation, but cases like this inevitably prompt reflection across the safeguarding sector.

One of the recurring themes that emerges from serious case reviews is the danger of assumptions.

As professionals, we can sometimes be reassured by what we see on the surface. A respected profession. A caring presentation. A willingness to help. A person who appears committed to supporting others. Yet safeguarding has repeatedly taught us that appearances alone cannot determine risk.

In fact, some of the most concerning individuals are often those who work hardest to cultivate trust.

People who present as rescuers, protectors, or advocates can sometimes be the very people causing harm. This is why safeguarding must always remain evidence-led rather than assumption-led.

It also reminds us of the importance of professional curiosity.

Professional curiosity is not about mistrust. It is about maintaining an open and questioning mindset. It means being willing to explore inconsistencies, ask difficult questions, seek clarification, and avoid accepting explanations at face value when something does not feel right.

Alongside this sits the challenge of disguised compliance.

Disguised compliance occurs when individuals appear to cooperate with professionals, engage with processes, or present themselves positively, whilst underlying concerns remain unaddressed. It can create a false sense of reassurance and lead professionals to believe risks have reduced when, in reality, they may remain significant.

The reality is that safeguarding is rarely straightforward. The people who cause harm do not always fit stereotypes. They do not always look dangerous. They do not always behave in ways that immediately raise concern. Sometimes they are trusted. Sometimes they are respected. Sometimes they are exactly the people others least expect.

That is why safeguarding requires us to look beyond roles, reputations, and appearances.

It requires us to remain professionally curious, to challenge our own assumptions, and to continually ask ourselves one simple question:

"What is life really like for this child?"

As safeguarding professionals, our responsibility is not simply to follow processes. It is to ensure the child's lived experience remains at the centre of our thinking, even when the adults around them appear credible, cooperative, or well-intentioned.

Cases like Preston's are heartbreaking. They remind us why professional challenge matters. They remind us why curiosity matters. Most importantly, they remind us why we must never allow assumptions to replace evidence when a child's safety is at stake.

Because children depend on adults seeing beyond what is presented to them and having the confidence to ask the questions that others may not.

The safeguarding sector often talks about learning lessons. In reality, the greatest responsibility we have is ensuring those lessons lead to meaningful action.

Preston deserved a future and this should never be a lesson.

The least we can do is continue striving to create systems, cultures, and practices that better protect children and young people from harm.

Read more here