Mr Gavin Nicholson

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 Gavin Nicholson

Teacher reference number: 0356782

Teacher's date of birth: 22 May 1977

Location teacher worked: Enfield, London

Date of professional conduct panel: 30 June to 4 July 2025 and 1 to 4 December 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 Gavin Nicholson formerly employed in Enfield, London.

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 Gavin Nicholson: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 6 Documents 6 Witnesses 6 Decision and reasons 7 Findings of fact 8 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 30 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 34 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Gavin Nicholson Teacher ref number: 0356782 Teacher date of birth: 22 May 1977 TRA reference: 21591 Date of determination: 4 December 2025 Former employer: Broomfield School, London Borough of Enfield. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 30 June to 4 July 2025 and on 1 to 4 December 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Gavin Nicholson. The panel members were Mrs Oluremi Alabi (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Aruna Sharma (teacher panellist) and Mrs Ashley Emmerson (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Helen Kitchen of Blake Morgan, solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mr Lee Bridges instructed by Kingsley Napley, solicitors. Mr Nicholson was present and was not represented on 30 to 4 July 2025. Mr Nicholson was not available to attend on 1 December 2025, and the case was adjourned until 2 December 2025. The case continued from 2 December to 4 December 2025. Mr Nicholson was present and was not represented on the 2 December to 4 December 2025. Further to a case direction, Independent Counsel, Mr Connor Hegerty, was instructed for the cross examination of two pupil witnesses, Pupil A and Pupil B. Later in the hearing, when evidence was called from a third pupil witness, another Independent Counsel, Martin Jones, was instructed to cross-examine a pupil witness, Pupil FG. The hearing took place in public, save that portions of the hearing were heard in private, and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 05 March 2025. It was alleged that Mr Gavin Nicholson was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, in that whilst working at Broomfield School (the School): 1. Between September 2022 and December 2022, he did not maintain professional boundaries with Pupil A, in that he: a) Exchanged emails of an inappropriate and/or personal nature with Pupil A after she had left the School; and/or b) Gave Pupil A his Facebook profile name and/or picture. 2. Between October 2018 and October 2022, he did not maintain professional boundaries with Pupil B in that he: a) Whilst Pupil B was a pupil at the School, he exchanged emails of an inappropriate and/or personal nature; and/or b) After Pupil B had left the School, he gave Pupil B his personal phone number; and/or c) After Pupil B had left the School, he exchanged messages on his personal mobile phone via WhatsApp; and/or d) In or around June 2022, he hugged Pupil B 3. Between March 2020 and September 2022, he did not maintain professional boundaries with Pupil C in that he: a) Exchanged emails of an inappropriate and/or personal nature; and/or b) Exchanged messages on his personal mobile phone via WhatsApp. 4. On or around 15 November 2022, he did not maintain professional boundaries with Pupil FA, in that he kissed her hand. 5. Between September 2021 and September 2022, on one or more occasion(s), he hugged one or more pupil(s). 5 6. In or around November 2022, he leaned in close towards Pupil FG and whispered that her “skirt is far too short”, or words to that effect. 7. He exchanged WhatsApp messages and/or emails with one or more former pupil(s) despite being told not to be in communication with former pupils by the Designated Safeguarding Lead on 9 September 2021. 8. His conduct at paragraphs 1 and/or 2 and/or 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 was sexually motivated. 9. At the time of his conduct in respect of Pupil A as outlined in allegations 1a and/or 1b he knew, or ought to have been aware, that she was vulnerable. 10. At the time of his conduct in respect of Pupil B as outlined in allegations 2a and/or 2b and/or 2c and/or 2d he knew, or ought to have been aware, that she was vulnerable. 11. At the time of his conduct in respect of Pupil C as outlined in allegations 3a and/or 3b he knew, or ought to have been aware, that she was vulnerable. 12. At the time of his conduct in respect of Pupil FA as outlined in allegation 4 he knew, or ought to have been aware, that she was vulnerable. Mr Nicholson fully admitted allegations 1b, 2b, 2c, 2d, 3b, 4, 7, 9, 10 and 11. Mr Nicholson admitted allegations 1a, 2a and 3a save that he denied that the emails exchanged were of an inappropriate nature. He also accepted that the email exchange in each of these allegations was unprofessional. Mr Nicholson also admitted allegation 6 save that he denied whispering. Mr Nicholson denied allegations 1a, 2a and 3a in so far as they alleged that the emails exchanged were of an inappropriate nature. He also denied allegation 5, allegation 6 in so far as it alleged whispering, allegation 8 and allegation 12. The panel formally treated these allegations as denied although took in to account the partial admissions that Mr Nicholson had made to allegations 1a, 2a, 3a, and 6. Mr Nicholson admitted unacceptable professional conduct in relation to those allegations, and those parts of the allegations, that he had admitted. He did not appear to fully accept that his admitted conduct may have brought the profession into disrepute and so this was treated as denied. 6 Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a TRA bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 1 to 9 Section 2: Notice of hearing and response to notice of hearing – pages 10 to 17 Section 3: Teaching Regulation Agency witness statements – pages 18 to 43 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 44 to 822 The panel also received the following documents from Mr Nicholson - A bundle of materials - pages 1 to 25 The panel also received the following further documents which it admitted in the course of the hearing; - An email dated 31 July 2019 from the [REDACTED] to Mr Nicholson - page 1 - A letter dated 25 April 2025 relating to Mr Nicholson’s [REDACTED] - page 1 - A photograph of a Jack Petchey Award given to Mr Nicholson and the accompanying certificate and medal - Photographs of four cards given to Mr Nicholson by various pupils expressing their appreciation of his teaching The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents in the bundles in advance of the hearing and had read the additional documents that the panel admitted at the outset of the hearing. The panel read the further documents admitted during the course of the hearing as and when they were received. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – [REDACTED] Witness B – Pupil A, [REDACTED] 7 Witness C – Pupil B, [REDACTED] Witness D – [REDACTED] Witness E – Pupil FG, [REDACTED] Mr Nicholson also gave oral evidence. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decisions and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 3 September 2012 Mr Nicholson commenced working at the School as a teacher of English employed through an agency. He became a permanent member of staff in February 2013. Subsequently, he was appointed as the Lead Teacher for Literacy. He was responsible for managing literacy across the School and ran a “creating literate learners” scheme. Mr Nicholson had responsibility for 41 hours across a two-week timetable and, from 2015 onwards taught pupils aged 11 to 16. He was also a form teacher. On 15 March 2021 Mr Nicholson was reminded of his safeguarding obligations by [REDACTED] of the School and the School’s DSL including how to handle disclosures from pupils and appropriate relationships. On 9 September 2021 the [REDACTED] provided advice to Mr Nicholson regarding safeguarding which was confirmed to him in an e-mail the following day. In June 2022 Mr Nicholson allegedly hugged Pupil B. On or around 15 November 2022 Mr Nicholson allegedly kissed Pupil FA’s hand. On 17 November 2022 Pupil FG, [REDACTED] at the School, reported to the School’s [REDACTED] that she felt uncomfortable with Mr Nicholson because of a remark that she said he had whispered to her about the length of her skirt. She, and two pupils who were with her when she reported her concern, Pupil FF and Pupil FE, also raised a concern that Mr Nicholson had kissed the hand of another pupil in a lesson. The issues were reported to the [REDACTED], the [REDACTED] and the LADO the same day. Mr Nicholson was advised on 17 November 2022 of a concern having been raised but was given no detail about it. On 24 November 2022 a multiagency meeting was held which included the LADO, the Police and the School. It was decided that no police investigation would be carried out 8 but that the School should undertake its own investigations. Mr Nicholson was advised of this the same day. An investigation was then undertaken by Witness A, [REDACTED]. On 7 December 2022 Mr Nicholson attended an investigatory meeting. On 5 January 2023 it was established that Mr Nicholson had access to Pupil A’s personal email address and