Mr Javier Martin-Navas

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 Javier Martin-Navas

Teacher reference number: 1570527

Teacher's date of birth: 10 January 1990

Location teacher worked: London, England

Date of professional conduct panel: 05 November 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 Javier Martin-Navas formerly employed in London, 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.

Mr Javier Martin-Navas: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education November 2025 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 6 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 9 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Javier Martin-Navas Teacher ref number: 1570527 Teacher date of birth: 10 January 1990 TRA reference: 20588 Date of determination: 5 November 2025 Former employer: North Bridge House Senior School, London. Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 5 November 2025 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Javier Martin-Navas. The panel members were Mrs Kate Hurley, (teacher panellist - in the chair), Mr Maurice Smith (lay panellist) and Ms Emma Garrett (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Jonathan White of Blake Morgan LLP. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Shirlie Duckworth of Lincoln House Chambers, instructed by Brabners LLP. Mr Javier Martin-Navas was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of hearing dated 18 August 2024. It was alleged that Mr Javier Martin-Navas was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: He was convicted on 13 March 2024 of: 1. Making indecent photographs, namely 2 moving images of Category A, of a child contrary to s.1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. 2. Making indecent photographs, namely 15 still and 3 moving images of Category B, of a child contrary to s.1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978. 3. Making indecent photographs, namely 36 still images of Category C of a child contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978. Mr Martin-Navas had not responded to the allegations as set out above or attended the hearing. In the absence of a response from Mr Martin-Navas, the allegation was not admitted. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section A: Notice of hearing and proof of service – pages 3 to 31 Section B: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 32 to 52 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. The panel accepted the legal advice provided by the legal adviser. 5 Mr Martin-Navas was employed at North Bridge House Senior School from 1 September 2015 until 2 February 2022 as Head of Modern Languages. On 1 February 2022 Mr Martin-Navas was arrested at his home address. On 26 February 2024 he was charged and required to attend Bromley Magistrates Court on 13 March 2024. At the hearing on 13 March 2024, Mr Martin-Navas pleaded guilty to the offences specified above. He was committed to Woolwich Crown Court for sentence, where he appeared on 26 April 2024. Mr Martin-Navas received a total custodial sentence of six months, suspended for 18 months. He was required to undertake a rehabilitation activity for a maximum of 30 days, 100 hours of unpaid work and he was required to register with the Police in accordance with the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for a period of seven years. The TRA subsequently received a referral in this matter. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation against you proved, for these reasons: You have been convicted of a relevant offence in that you were convicted on 13 March 2024 of: 1. Making indecent photographs, namely 2 moving images of Category A, of a child contrary to s.1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 2. Making indecent photographs, namely 15 still and 3 moving images of Category B, of a child contrary to s.1(a) of the Protection of Children Act 1978 3. Making indecent photographs, namely 36 still images of Category C of a child contrary to s.1(a) of The Protection of Children Act 1978. The panel was provided with a certificate of conviction in this matter, which confirmed that Mr Martin-Navas had pleaded guilty to the offences specified above at the Magistrates Court. The certificate of conviction set out the sentences that he had received for these offences at the Crown Court. The panel treated the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the convictions and the facts necessarily implied by the convictions. The panel identified no exceptional circumstances. The panel therefore found the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities. 6 Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of the proven allegation amounted to a conviction for a relevant offence. In doing so, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: The prohibition of teachers, which is referred to as “the Advice”. The panel noted that Mr Martin-Navas’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, albeit that it was suspended, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. These were offences that involved making indecent photographs of children, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel had limited information about the circumstances of the offence, but was satisfied that by its nature, it was an extremely serious offence, as reflected in the sentence received and the fact that the offences included category A images. There were no mitigating factors presented to the panel, though it noted that Mr Martin- Navas had pleaded guilty at the first hearing. The panel took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Martin-Navas’ behaviour in committing the offences could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel concluded that the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Martin-Navas’ ongoing suitability to teach. The panel considered that a finding that this conviction was for a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. The panel therefore found that Mr Martin-Navas was guilty of a relevant offence. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of a conviction of a relevant offence, it was necessary for the panel to go on to consider whether it would be appropriate to recommend the imposition of a prohibition order by the Secretary of State. In considering whether to recommend to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be made, the panel had to consider whether it would be an appropriate and proportionate measure, and whether it would be in the public interest to do so. Prohibition 7 orders should not be given in order to be punitive, or to show that blame has been apportioned, although they are likely to have punitive effect. The panel had regard to the particular public interest considerations set out in the Advice and, having done so, found a number of them to be relevant in this case, namely, the safeguarding and wellbeing of pupils, the protection of other members of the public, the maintenance of public confidence in the profession and declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Martin-Navas, which involved three offences of making indecent photographs of children in categories A, B and C, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Martin-Navas was not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was of the view that a strong public interest consideration in declaring proper standards of conduct in the profession was also present as the conduct found against Mr Martin-Navas was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. The panel found that pupils, parents and the wider community would consider Mr Martin- Navas’ conduct to be incompatible with being a teacher, having regard to the serious nature of the offences and the influential role a teacher plays in their community. The panel noted that although the legal definition of ‘making’ an indecent photograph did not require Mr Martin-Navas to have created the photograph in person, the offence was made out by, for example, downloading it. In this way, Mr Martin-Navas had indirectly colluded in the abuse of the children in those photographs. In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Martin-Navas in the profession. The panel had been presented with no evidence as to Mr Martin-Navas’ ability as a teacher, or any evidence of him having made an exceptional contribution to education. The panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweighed any possible interest in retaining Mr Martin-Navas in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher. The panel considered carefully the seriousness of the behaviour, noting that the Advice states that the expectation of both the public and pupils, is that members of the teaching profession maintain an exemplary level of integrity and ethical standards at all times. In view of the clear public interest considerations that were present, the panel considered carefully whether or not it would be proportionate to impose a prohibition order, taking into account the effect that this would have on Mr Martin-Navas and recognising that a prohibition order would prevent him from being able to teach. 8 In doing so, the panel took further account of the Advice, which suggests that a prohibition order may be appropriate if certain behaviours of a teacher have been proved. In the list of such behaviours, those that were relevant in this case were:  serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards;  the commission of a serious criminal offence;  misconduct seriously affecting the education and/or safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk;  any activity involving making, any indecent photograph or image, or indecent pseudo photograph or image, of a child, or permitting such activity, including one- off incidents – the panel noting that this was not a one-off incident as there were 56 images involved, on more than one occasion. Even though some of the behaviour found proved in this case indicated that a prohibition order would be appropriate, the panel went on to consider any mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. The panel did not identify any mitigating factors, beyond the fact that Mr Martin-Navas had pleaded guilty at the first hearing at the Magistrates Court and Mr Martin-Navas had not advanced any mitigation to the TRA or the panel. The panel first considered whether it would be proportionate to conclude this case with no recommendation of prohibition, considering whether the publication of the findings made by the panel would be sufficient. The panel was of the view that, applying the standard of the ordinary intelligent citizen, it would not be a proportionate and appropriate response to recommend no prohibition order. Recommending that the publication of adverse findings would be sufficient would unacceptably compromise the public interest considerations present in this case, despite the severity of the consequences for Mr Martin-Navas of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was proportionate, appropriate and essential in maintaining public confidence in the profession and a safe environment for pupils. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Martin-Navas. The nature and seriousness of the offences, for which he had received a custodial sentence, albeit suspended, was a significant factor in forming that opinion. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect. The panel went on to consider whether or not it would be appropriate for it to decide to recommend a review period of the order. The panel was mindful that the Advice states that a prohibition order applies for life, but there may be circumstances, in any given 9 case, that may make it appropriate to allow a teacher to apply to have the prohibition order reviewed after a specified period of time that may not be less than 2 years. The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These include any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child. The offences committed by Mr Martin-Navas fell into this category. The panel decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended without provisions for a review period. Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State I have given very careful consideration to this case and to the recommendation of the panel in respect of both sanction and review period. In considering this case, I have also given very careful attention to the Advice that the Secretary of State has published concerning the prohibition of teachers. In this case, the panel has found all of the allegations proven and found that those proven facts amount to a relevant conviction. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Javier Martin- Navas should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. The panel finds that Mr Martin-Navas’ behaviour represents a serious departure from the personal and professional conduct elements of the Teachers’ Standards. The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher being convicted of making indecent photographs of children. I have to determine whether the imposition of a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest. In assessing that for this case, I have considered the overall aim of a prohibition order which is to protect pupils and to maintain public confidence in the profession. I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order in this case would achieve that aim taking into account the impact that it will have on the individual teacher. I have also asked myself, whether a less intrusive measure, such as the published finding of a relevant conviction, would itself be sufficient to achieve the overall aim. I have to consider whether the consequences of such a publication are themselves sufficient. I have considered therefore whether or not prohibiting Mr Martin-Navas, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. 10 In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel makes the following observation: “The panel had limited information about the circumstances of the offence, but was satisfied that by its nature, it was an extremely serious offence, as reflected in the sentence received and the fact that the offences included category A images.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have noted that the panel makes no reference to having seen any evidence that Mr Martin-Navas has developed any insight into or remorse for his actions, save that he had pleaded Guilty at the first hearing at the Magistrates Court. In my judgement, this lack of evidence means that there is some risk of the repetition of this behaviour and this puts at risk the future wellbeing of pupils. I have therefore given this element considerable weight in reaching my decision. I have gone on to consider the extent to which a prohibition order would maintain public confidence in the profession. The panel records the following: “The panel found that pupils, parents and the wider community would consider Mr Martin-Navas’ conduct to be incompatible with being a teacher, having regard to the serious nature of the offences and the influential role a teacher plays in their community.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher being convicted of making indecent images of children in this case and the negative impact that such a finding is likely to have on the reputation of the profession. I have had to consider that the public has a high expectation of professional standards of all teachers and that the public might regard a failure to impose a prohibition order as a failure to uphold those high standards. In weighing these considerations, I have had to consider the matter from the point of view of an “ordinary intelligent and well-informed citizen.” I have considered whether the publication of a finding of a relevant conviction, in the absence of a prohibition order, can itself be regarded by such a person as being a proportionate response to the misconduct that has been found proven in this case. I have also considered the impact of a prohibition order on Mr Martin-Navas himself. The panel makes this comment: “In addition to the public interest considerations set out above, the panel went on to consider whether there was a public interest in retaining Mr Martin-Navas in the profession. The panel had been presented with no evidence as to Mr Martin-Navas’ ability as a teacher, or any evidence of him having made an exceptional contribution to 11 education. The panel considered that the adverse public interest considerations above outweighed any possible interest in retaining Mr Martin-Navas in the profession, since his behaviour fundamentally breached the standard of conduct expected of a teacher.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Martin-Navas from teaching. A prohibition order would also clearly deprive the public of his contribution to the profession for the period that it is in force. In this case, I have placed considerable weight on the very serious nature of the misconduct found. I have also noted the lack of evidence of insight and/or remorse. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Martin-Navas has made to the profession. In my view, it is necessary to impose a prohibition order in order to maintain public confidence in the profession. A published decision, in light of the circumstances in this case, does not in my view satisfy the public interest requirement concerning public confidence in the profession. For these reasons, I have concluded that a prohibition order is proportionate and in the public interest in order to achieve the intended aims of a prohibition order. I have gone on to consider the matter of a review period. In this case, the panel has recommended that no provision should be made for a review period. In doing so it has made reference to the Advice as follows: “The Advice indicates that there are certain types of case where, if relevant, the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of not offering a review period. These include any activity involving viewing, taking, making, possessing, distributing or publishing any indecent photograph or image or indecent pseudo photograph or image of a child. The offences committed by Mr Martin-Navas fell into this category.” I have considered whether not allowing a review period reflects the seriousness of the findings and is a proportionate period to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. In this case, factors mean that allowing a review period is not sufficient to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence in the profession. These elements are the very serious nature of the misconduct found which constitutes behaviour incompatible with working as a teacher, as well as the lack of evidence of either insight or remorse and consequent risk of repetition. I consider therefore that allowing for no review period is necessary to maintain public confidence and is proportionate and in the public interest. This means that Mr Javier Martin-Navas is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. Furthermore, in view of the seriousness of the 12 allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Martin-Navas shall not be entitled to apply for restoration of his eligibility to teach. This order takes effect from the date on which it is served on the teacher. Mr Martin-Navas has a right of appeal to the High Court within 28 days from the date he is given notice of this order. Decision maker: Marc Cavey Date: 11 November 2025 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.