Mr Andrew Nicolaides

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 Andrew Nicolaides

Teacher reference number: 1234479

Teacher's date of birth: 15 October 1980

Location teacher worked: Nottingham, East Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 10 February 2025 to 13 February 2025

Outcome type: Prohibition order

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 Andrew Nicolaides formerly employed in Nottingham, East Midlands. 

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 Andrew Nicolaides: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 5 Summary of evidence 8 Documents 8 Witnesses 9 Decision and reasons 9 Findings of fact 10 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 21 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 24 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Andrew Nicolaides Teacher ref number: 1234479 Teacher date of birth: 15 October 1980 TRA reference: 19478 Date of determination: 13 February 2025 Former employer: Bluecoat Beechdale Academy, Nottingham Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 10 to 13 February by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Andrew Nicolaides. The panel members were Mr Ian Hylan (teacher panellist – in the chair), Mrs Hannah Foster (teacher panellist) and Mrs Shabana Robertson (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Eleanor Bullen-Bell of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Charles Drinnan on behalf of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Nicolaides was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place by way of a virtual hearing in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 27 November 2024, as amended during the hearing. It was alleged that Mr Nicolaides was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst employed at Bluecoat Beechdale Academy: 1. Between 2012 and 2016, he failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries with Pupil C, in that: a. Whilst Pupil C was a student, he touched and/or stroked Pupil C’s leg and/or thigh; b. Whilst Pupil C was a student, he hugged Pupil C on one or more occasions; c. Whilst Pupil C was a student, he disclosed to Pupil C the information within Schedule A; d. Whilst Pupil C was a student he asked Pupil C on one or more occasions to come to his house when he knew or ought to have known that this was inappropriate; e. Whilst Pupil C was a student, after receiving a present from Pupil C he told Pupil C he ‘wanted to kiss her’ or words to that effect; f. After Pupil C had left the School, he told Pupil C she shouldn’t be having sex with her boyfriend but with him; g. He exchanged messages with Pupil C via Facebook Messenger whilst she was at school and/or after she had left school; h. Whilst Pupil C was a student, he accepted one or more presents from Pupil C. 2. On unknown dates, between 2012 and 2016 he sent messages of an inappropriate nature to Pupil C on social media, including: a. Telling Pupil C she was ‘beautiful’ or words to that effect; b. Requesting Pupil C come and wash his car at his house or words to that effect; c. Suggesting that if he had a water fight it would be like a ‘wet t-shirt competition’ or words to that effect; d. Telling Pupil C ‘I’ve missed you’; 5 e. ‘I would want to hug and kiss you’; f. In response to the message ‘should probably go bed soon’ you stated ‘wish I could join u x’. 3. Between 2010 and 2015, he made inappropriate comments to one or more pupils, in that he: a. Told one or more pupils that when girls crossed their legs and pushed their skirts down, they were sexually frustrated or words to that effect. 4. By reason of his behaviour from July 2014 onwards in respect of Pupil C, he failed to follow advice issued to him on or around 16 July 2014, in terms of maintaining professional standards. 5. On a date or dates prior to 28 May 2020, he: a. Made searches relating to having sex with students; and/or b. Accessed pornographic material with themes relating to teachers and/or school girls. 6. His behaviour as set out at allegations 1 and/or 2 and/or 3, and/or 5 above was: a. Sexually motivated; and/or b. Sexual in nature. Schedule A i. [REDACTED] ii. [REDACTED] Mr Nicolaides denied the allegations, as set out in the response to the notice of proceedings form, signed by Mr Nicolaides but undated. Preliminary applications Application to proceed in the absence of the teacher Mr Nicolaides was not present at the hearing nor was he represented. The presenting officer made an application to proceed in the absence of Mr Nicolaides. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, as derived from the guidance set down in the 6 case of R v Jones [2003] (as considered and applied in subsequent cases, particularly General Medical Council v Adeogba [2016]). The panel was satisfied that the Notice of Proceedings had been sent to Mr Nicolaides in accordance with the Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020 (the ‘Procedures’). The panel considered a bundle of documents produced by the presenting officer for the TRA, which included the TRA’s correspondence with Mr Nicolaides and his trade union representation for the purpose of confirming that the requirements of service had been complied with by the TRA. The bundle firstly highlighted that, on 6 January 2025 via email, Mr Nicolaides’ trade union representative confirmed Mr Nicolaides’ agreement to the bundle provided on 27 November 2024, which indicated that the evidence bundle had been disclosed to Mr Nicolaides. The panel also considered an email from Mr Nicolaides’ trade union representative dated 9 January 2025 which attached Mr Nicolaides’ signed, but undated, notice of proceedings form. The panel further noted Mr Nicolaides undated written statement, which expressly stated that he refuted the allegations and that he would not be engaging with the TRA process. This statement was provided by Mr Nicolaides’ trade union representative on 13 January 2025 and the text of the email confirmed that neither Mr Nicolaides nor his trade union representative would be attending this hearing. The panel concluded that Mr Nicolaides absence was voluntary and that he was aware that the matter would proceed in his absence. The panel noted that Mr Nicolaides had not sought an adjournment to the hearing and the panel did not consider that an adjournment would procure his attendance at a hearing. There was no medical evidence before the panel that Mr Nicolaides was unfit to attend the hearing. The panel considered that it was in the public interest for the hearing to take place. It also considered the effect on the witnesses of any delay both in respect of vulnerability and the length of time since the allegations. Having decided that it was appropriate to proceed, the panel agreed to seek to ensure that the proceedings were as fair as possible in the circumstances, bearing in mind that Mr Nicolaides was neither present nor represented. Application for part of the hearing to be heard in private The panel considered an application from the presenting officer that part of the hearing [REDACTED] should be heard in private. 7 The panel considered it was not contrary to the public interest for the part of the hearing, which was the subject of the application, to be heard in private. The panel accepted the legal advice provided in relation to this application and took account of the various factors referred to it, particularly the key principles set down in the case of Miller v General Medical Council [2013] (which referred to the case of R v Legal Aid Board Ex p Kaim Todner [1998]). The panel considered that Mr Nicolaides had not chosen to initiate these proceedings so had a greater legitimate interest in a claim to protection, bearing in mind that Mr Nicolaides was neither present nor represented to ask for such protection. The panel considered that the areas covered in the application legitimately related to aspects of Mr Nicolaides’ [REDACTED], and there was no contrary public interest in those areas being discussed in public. The hearing was still being held in public and these were discrete and limited areas which would not undermine the public's ability to otherwise understand the case. The panel therefore granted the application for part of the hearing [REDACTED] to be heard in private. Application for the statement of a witness to be admitted as hearsay The presenting officer made an application that the statement of Individual A and the relevant appendices of this statement to be admitted as hearsay evidence in the absence of the witness. [REDACTED]. After receiving submissions from the presenting officer and receiving legal advice, the panel made the following decision. The panel carefully considered the submissions made in determining whether it would be fair to admit the statement as hearsay evidence. The panel noted that the evidence of the witness was not the sole and decisive evidence in relation to the allegations but added contextual understanding to the case. Regarding this, the panel noted that Individual A’s evidence related to the School’s investigation of the issues, which it must not be unduly influenced by in any event, and that Individual A had never met Mr Nicolaides. Furthermore, the evidence was not such that the panel felt that it would be unable to test its reliability in the absence of the witness. The panel concluded that the balance of fairness was not against admitting the statement as hearsay evidence. Accordingly, the statement of the witness was admitted and considered in the panel’s deliberations. Application to amend allegations 8 On the presenting officer’s suggestion, the panel considered amending the date range from 2005 and 2020 to 2010 to 2015 in allegation