Mr Joseph 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 Joseph Nicholson

Teacher reference number: 1936726

Teacher's date of birth: 18 February 1993

Location teacher worked: Gloucester, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 3 December 2024

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 Joseph Nicholson, formerly employed in Gloucester, South 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.

Mr Joseph Nicholson: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education December 2024 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Preliminary applications 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of Agreed Facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of Fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Joseph Nicholson Teacher ref number: 1936726 Teacher date of birth: 18 February 1993 TRA reference: 22625 Date of determination: 3 December 2024 Former employer: The Crypt School, Gloucester Introduction A professional conduct panel (‘the panel’) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (‘the TRA’) convened on 3 December by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Joseph Nicholson. The panel members were Ms Tanya Callman (lay panellist – in the chair), Dr Martin Coles (former teacher panellist) and Mrs Michelle Chappell (teacher panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Lucy Churchill of Birketts LLP solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Nicholson that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Nicholson provided a signed Statement of Agreed Facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Alexander Barnfield, Mr Nicholson, or any representative for Mr Nicholson. The meeting took place in private by way of a virtual meeting. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the notice of meeting dated 7 November 2024. It was alleged that Mr Nicholson was guilty of having been convicted of a relevant offence, in that: 1. On 1 August 2023 he was convicted at Gloucestershire Magistrates’ Court and on 29 August 2023 he was sentenced at Gloucester Crown Court for the offence of Engaging in Sexual Communication with a child on 17/03/22 – 31/03/22, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1). Mr Nicholson admitted allegation 1 and that his behaviour amounted to the conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts signed by Mr Nicholson on 21 September 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 1 October 2024. Preliminary applications There were no preliminary applications. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: • Section 1: Chronology, anonymised pupil list and list of key people – pages 3 to 6 • Section 2: Notice of Proceedings and response – pages 7 to 22 • Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts and presenting officer representations – pages 23 to 28 • Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 29 to 141 • Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 142 to 169 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. 5 Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts which was signed by Mr Nicholson on 21 September 2024, and subsequently signed by the presenting officer on 1 October 2024. Decision and reasons The panel carefully considered the case and reached the following decision and reasons: In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Nicholson for the allegation to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel reviewed the amendments Mr Nicholson had sought to make to the Statement of Agreed Facts. The panel considered that they did not undermine his admission or the agreed position; they merely added context to be considered by the panel. Therefore, the panel did not determine that it was necessary or appropriate to direct that the case be considered at a hearing. On 1 September 2020, Mr Nicholson was employed as a teacher at the Crypt School (‘the School’). On 20 January 2022, Mr Nicholson submitted his letter of resignation due to applying for a post in another school. On 30 March 2022, [REDACTED] and [REDACTED] had a telephone discussion regarding an email from Pupil A’s parents that raised concerns about inappropriate contact between Mr Nicholson and Pupil A. On 31 March 2022, Mr Nicholson was suspended. On 4 April 2022, the matter was referred to the police. On 29 June 2023, Mr Nicholson was arrested and charged with inappropriate sexual communication with a child. On 1 August 2023, Mr Nicholson was convicted in the Gloucestershire Magistrates Court. On 29 August 2023, Mr Nicholson was sentenced in the Crown Court. On 11 September 2023, the matter was referred to the TRA. 6 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: 1. On 1 August 2023 you were convicted at Gloucestershire Magistrates’ Court and on 29 August 2023 you were sentenced at Gloucester Crown Court for the offence of Engaging in Sexual Communication with a child on 17/03/22 – 31/03/22, contrary to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 s.15A(1). The panel considered the Statement of Agreed Facts, signed by Mr Nicholson on the 21 September 2024. In that Statement of Agreed Facts, Mr Nicholson admitted allegation 1, and further admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher misconduct: the prohibition of teachers (‘the Advice’) which states that where there has been a conviction at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction, unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find that any exceptional circumstances applied in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction from Gloucester Crown Court, dated 10 May 2024, which detailed that Mr Nicholson had been convicted of engaging in sexual communication with a child. The panel noted that Mr Nicholson pleaded guilty to the offence. In respect of the allegation, Mr Nicholson was sentenced to a 36 months’ community order; a 40 day rehabilitation activity requirement; 200 hours unpaid work; a 30 day programme requirement; to sign the sex offender’s register for 5 years; a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years; to pay £425.00 in prosecution costs and to pay a victim surcharge of £95. On examination of the documents before the panel and the admissions in the signed Statement of Agreed Facts, the panel was satisfied that the facts of allegation 1 were proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence Having found the allegation proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to conviction of a relevant offence. 7 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 was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Nicholson in relation to the facts it found proved involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that by reference to Part 2, Mr Nicholson was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o Treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position; o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions; o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others; o ensuring that personal beliefs are not expressed in ways which exploit pupils’ vulnerability or might lead them to break the law. • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies, and practices of the school in which they teach … • Teachers must have an understanding of, and always act within, the statutory frameworks which set out their professional duties and responsibilities. The panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Nicholson fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils. The panel noted that the offence involved sexual communication with a child, Pupil A, who was a pupil at the School. The panel therefore considered that Mr Nicholson’s convictions were relevant to teaching and working with children and working in an education setting. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Nicholson’s behaviour in committing the offence could undoubtedly affect public confidence in the teaching profession, particularly given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. His conduct ran counter to what should have been at the very core of his practice as a teacher with a duty of care towards children. By virtue of his position, Mr Nicholson was in a position of trust and responsibility in relation to the pupil. He abused that position. 8 The child protection and public protection issues engaged by Mr Nicholson’s actions were demonstrated by the Court's sentence. This was a case involving an offence of sexual