High school teacher who groomed a teenage student before performing a sexual act on him is identified after she loses her bid to keep it a secret

A former high school teacher who admitted to grooming a 15-year-old male student and performing a sexual act on him has lost her bid to keep her name suppressed.

Auckland teacher Myah Leanie Adams, 27, was initially sentenced to two years and one month in prison by Judge Brooke Gibson earlier this year, Stuff reported.

Adams pleaded guilty to a representative charge of sexual conduct with a young person under 16 with the offending occurring in 2023 when Adams was 25.

Her lawyer, Emma Priest, appealed the sentence to the High Court, where her sentence was reduced, but her bid to keep her name suppressed was denied.

According to court documents, Adams, who graduated from the University of Waikato with a Bachelor of Teaching in 2019, had connected with the student on Snapchat.

Adams initiated contact and began grooming him through flirtatious messages, compliments on his appearance, and gifts, including vapes and access to her credit card. 

She also removed him from school after detention to take him for haircuts.

In September 2023, Adams drove the teen to a secluded car park where she kissed him and performed a sexual act. 

She later urged him to keep the incident secret and began sending him nude photos via Snapchat. 

Later that month, she took him to the cinema, provided him with alcoholic drinks, and again engaged in sexual contact, both during the film and afterwards, in the same carpark.

According to victim impact statements read to the court, the boy became disengaged from school and suffered emotional and psychological distress as a result of the abuse

At sentencing, Judge Gibson described the case as a ‘serious breach of trust,’ emphasizing Adams’ position as a teacher and the vulnerability of the student. 

He rejected her lawyer’s request for home detention. 

‘You are a teacher, and I think that is a significant aggravating factor… Deterrence, denunciation and accountability require a sentence of imprisonment in your case,’ he said. 

Adams sobbed in court as the prison sentence was handed down.

Ms Priest later appealed the sentence to the High Court.

In a decision, Justice Gerard van Bohemen agreed the original sentence was ‘manifestly excessive’ and quashed the prison term, replacing it with 10 months’ home detention.

Ms Priest argued the offending was limited to two sexual encounters over three weeks, that Adams was remorseful, and that the age gap between her and the victim was smaller than in other cases. 

She also cited Adams’ low risk of reoffending and her offer of reparation as mitigating factors.

Justice van Bohemen accepted that imprisonment would have a disproportionate impact on Adams’ young daughter and ruled that she did not meet the threshold for inclusion on the Child Sex Offenders Register. 

‘I am satisfied Ms Adams does not pose a risk to the victim or other children,’ he said.

However, Adams’ bid for permanent name suppression was denied. The court ruled that the public interest in identifying her outweighed any potential hardship.

‘The public interest is not diminished by Adams leaving the teaching profession,’ the judge noted, adding that her name would remain public and no further appeal would be filed.