Miss Nicola Houghton

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: Miss Nicola Houghton

Location teacher worked: Liverpool, Merseyside, North West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 8 January 2025 to 15 January 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

Miss Nicola Houghton, formerly employed in Liverpool, Merseyside, 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.

Miss Nicola Houghton: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 10 Documents 10 Witnesses 10 Decision and reasons 11 Findings of fact 13 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 39 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 45 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Miss Nicola Houghton TRA reference: 0020797 Date of determination: 15 January 2025 Former employer: Rowan High School, Liverpool Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 8 January 2025 to 15 January 2025 by virtual means, to consider the case of Miss Nicola Houghton. The panel members were Mrs Bev Williams (teacher panellist in the chair), Mr Carl Lygo (panellist) and Mr Duncan Tilley (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mrs Luisa Gibbons of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mrs Heather Andersen of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. For the second stage of the hearing, Miss Leah Redden replaced Mrs Andersen as the presenting officer. Miss Houghton was present and was represented by Mr Jonathan Storey of Cornwall Street Barristers. The hearing took place in public, save for sections that were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 14 June 2024, as clarified during the course of the hearing. It was alleged that Miss Houghton was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at Rowan High School from 1 April 2012 until 30 July 2021: 1. She engaged in unprofessional and/or inappropriate behaviour towards one or more members of staff in that she: a. Offered planning and preparation time in exchange for sexual favours; b. Made comments to male Staff Members about the size of their genitals; c. Suggested that female staff attend work in a bikini and/or swimsuit; d. Made sexual comments relating to an orgasm; e. Pulled open her top and asked staff if they wanted to comment how good her breasts looked; 2. She engaged in unprofessional and/or inappropriate behaviour and/or inappropriate physical contact towards Staff Member A, in that: a. She placed her hand on Staff Member A’s leg and moved it up her thigh; b. She made a comment about Staff Member A having sex in her [Staff Member A’s] back garden; c. She discussed fingers and thumbs in a sexual manner following a conversation relating to a wrist support used on a keyboard; 3. She engaged in unprofessional and/or inappropriate behaviour and/or physical contact towards Staff Member B in that; a. She placed her foot on Staff Member B’s leg and began to brush her foot upwards on Staff Member B’s thigh; b. She pushed her hand into Staff Member B’s back on one or more occasions: c. When Staff Member B made a noise as a result of her conduct at 3b, she referred to this as her [Staff Member B’s] “sex noise”’; d. She pulled open Staff Member B’s top and placed paper down the top; e. She showed Staff Member B a video of a vagina; f. She made a comment about Staff Member B’s breasts; g. She pressed a hot spoon onto Staff Member B’s arm; 4. Not pursued by the TRA. 5 5. She engaged in unprofessional and/or inappropriate behaviour and/or physical contact towards Staff Member D in that; a. She placed her hand on Staff Member D’s leg and moved it up her [Staff Member D’s] leg. b. She made comments about Staff Member D’s breasts and /or bottom; c. She touched Staff Member D’s breast. d. She told Staff Member D that she had sexual dreams about her [Staff Member D]. 6. Not pursued by the TRA. 7. Her conduct as may be found proven at allegations1., 2., 3. and 5 was of a sexual nature and/or sexually motivated. Miss Houghton admitted allegations 1a., 1b., 1c., 2b., 3b., 3d., 3f., 3g. and 5a. She neither admitted nor denied allegations 2a., 2c., 3a., 3c., 3e., 5b., 5c. and 5d. In respect of the allegations that were neither admitted nor denied, Miss Houghton’s had no recollection of whether the alleged conduct had occurred or not. With respect to allegation 7., Miss Houghton admitted, that some of the allegations for example, 1a.,1b., 1e., 2b., 2c., 3c., and 5b. if found proven, would be conduct of a sexual nature. Miss Houghton denied that her conduct was sexually motivated. Miss Houghton accepted that her admitted conduct amounted to both unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Preliminary applications Clarification of Allegations Given that the notice of proceedings dated 14 June 2024 had been redacted within the panel bundle, and it appeared to contain a number of typographical errors, the panel sought to clarify with the parties at the outset of the first hearing day what the allegations were. The following issues were identified: • Sub-paragraphs 2b. and 2c were to have the word “You” added at the beginning of each; • Sub-paragraph 3 was to have the word “towards” inserted between “contact” and “Staff Member B”; • Paragraph 4 was not pursued by the TRA, and so the following paragraph should be numbered 5. 6 • The stem of paragraph 5 had been redacted in error and should read: “You engaged in unprofessional and/or inappropriate behaviour and/or physical contact towards Staff Member D in that;” • The word “of” in sub-paragraph 5a. was to be replaced by the word “on” • Paragraph 6 was not pursued by the TRA. • Paragraph 7 should cross refer to allegations 1.,2.,3., and 5. Miss Houghton’s representative confirmed that the above had been his client’s understanding of the allegations, and that no prejudice was caused by the amendments. The panel accordingly amended the allegations as set out above. Following the conclusion of the first hearing day, after the parties had opened their cases and Staff Member D had concluded giving evidence, the presenting officer raised an issue regarding the allegations. She notified Miss Houghton’s representative and the legal adviser that three sub-paragraphs (allegations 3e., 3f. and 3g.) had been redacted in error from the notice of proceedings contained within the panel bundle. At the start of the second hearing day, the presenting officer asked that the panel determine these sub- allegations since they appeared in the notice of proceedings sent to Miss Houghton, and that both parties were aware that it was only allegations 4. and 6. which were not to be pursued by the TRA. The presenting officer made submissions that Miss Houghton would not be prejudiced by the inclusion of the allegations since Miss Houghton had addressed them in her written statement to the panel dated 10 December 2024. Miss Houghton’s representative stated that, until the final version of the panel bundle containing the redacted notice of proceedings was received, Miss Houghton had been under the impression that allegations 3e., 3f., and 3g. formed part of the allegations against her. Miss Houghton’s representative made clear that the sub-paragraphs were not redacted by Miss Houghton’s legal team, nor had this been at Miss Houghton’s request. Miss Houghton’s representative confirmed that his client’s position regarding whether sub-paragraphs 3e., 3f. and 3g. should be considered by the panel was neutral. Since allegations 3e., 3f. and 3.g were included in the notice of proceedings as sent to Miss Houghton in June 2024, and there had been no exchange to indicate those allegations were not to be pursued, the panel considered that they had been redacted in error by the presenting officer’s firm. The panel noted that Miss Houghton had the right to be informed promptly and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against her. The panel did not consider that any prejudice was caused to Miss Houghton if the allegations were determined by the panel, since her statement had been prepared as if the allegations were to be considered. The panel noted that the allegations related to Miss Houghton’s conduct towards Staff Member B who had not yet been called to give evidence. The panel noted that it could invite the parties to revisit their opening statements in case any further submissions were to made in relation to these allegations. The panel also noted that it 7 was possible for the panel to recall Staff Member D to give evidence if either party or the panel considered that this would be appropriate. On balance, the panel considered that, since no decision had been taken not to pursue allegations 3e.,3f. and 3g, an administrative error should not preclude the determination of these allegations in the public interest and the interests of justice. The panel also considered that it was in Miss Houghton’s interests for the allegations to be determined, rather than those allegations being left in an undetermined state. Allegations 3e. 3f. and 3g were therefore to be considered by the panel. Application for Special Measures The presenting officer made a written application for Staff Member E [REDACTED] to be considered a vulnerable witness, pursuant to paragraph 5.102 of the Procedures and that the panel adopt special measures to safeguard his interests, namely that: a. Miss Houghton should turn off her camera and microphone whilst Staff Member E gives evidence; and b. The evidence of Staff Member E should be heard in private. The presenting officer also made a written application for the evidence of Staff Member D to be heard in private. A panel at a case management hearing had already decided that