Mr Kevin Davies

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 Kevin Davies

Teacher reference number: 8775097

Teacher's date of birth: 11 June 1965

Location teacher worked: Shrewsbury, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 17 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 Kevin Davies, formerly employed in Shrewsbury, West 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 Kevin Davies: Professional conduct panel meeting 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 4 Documents 4 Statement of Agreed Facts 4 Decision and reasons 4 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 7 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 Kevin Davies Teacher ref number: 8775097 Teacher date of birth: 11 June 1965 TRA reference: 19803 Date of determination: 17 December 2025 Former employer: Harry Carlton School, Leicestershire (the “School”) and Concord College, Shrewsbury (the “College”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 17 December 2025 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Davies The panel members were Mr Paul Hawkins (lay panellist – in the chair), Mrs Bernie Whittle (teacher panellist) and Mr Scott Evans (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Miss Elizabeth Gilbert of Eversheds Sutherland (International) LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Mrs Natasha Savovic of Kingsley Napley LLP solicitors. Mr Davies was not present and was not represented. 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 Davies that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Davies provided a signed Statement of Agreed Facts and admitted he was convicted of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Mr Davies or his representative. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegation set out in the Notice of Meeting dated 4 December 2025. It was alleged that Mr Davies was convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On or around 31 March 2022, he was convicted of two counts of indecent assault on a female under 16 years old. In the Statement of Agreed Facts dated 8 September 2025, Mr Davies admitted the allegation and that his admitted conduct constituted a conviction of a relevant offence. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the meeting, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and anonymised pupil list – pages 3 to 5 Section 2: Notice of referral and response – pages 6 to 15 Section 3: Statement of Agreed Facts – pages 16 to 18 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 19 to 98 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 99 to 101 Section 6: Notice of meeting – pages 102 to 103 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the meeting. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession 2020, (the “Procedures”). Statement of Agreed Facts The panel considered a Statement of Agreed Facts which was signed by Mr Davies on 8 September 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: 5 The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Davies for the allegations 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 did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Davies was employed as a teacher at the School between 1 September 1993 and 31 August 2001. Mr Davies was employed as a physics teacher at the College from 1 September 2015 to 31 October 2020. Mr Davies was referred to the TRA on 5 February 2021. 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: It was alleged that you were convicted of a relevant offence in that: 1. On or around 31 March 2022, you were convicted of two counts of indecent assault on a female under 16 years old. In the Statement of Agreed Facts, Mr Davies admitted that he was convicted on 31 March 2022 at Nottingham Crown Court of two counts of indecent assault on a female under 16 years old. Mr Davies further admitted that he was sentenced on 15 November 2024 at Nottingham Crown Court. In the Statement of Agreed Facts, Mr Davies further admitted the following: • Pupil X is a former pupil of the School; • In or around [REDACTED] and kissed Pupil X [REDACTED]; • Pupil X performed oral sex on Mr Davies [REDACTED]; and • Mr Davies continued to have sexual encounters with Pupil X until 2002. In a written statement dated 9 April 2025, Mr Davies stated “I accept my offence”. The panel was presented with a certificate of conviction from Nottingham Crown Court, confirming that Mr Davies was convicted on 31 March 2022 of the offences particularised in this allegation. 6 Mr Davies was sentenced on 15 November 2024 to 18 months imprisonment and issued a 10-year notification requirement under the Sex Offenders Register. The panel was presented with the transcript of the sentencing remarks dated 15 November 2024, summarising the offences and the reason for the sentence imposed. The panel noted that there was no evidence showing that there were any exceptional circumstances to call into question the facts necessarily implied by the conviction. The panel therefore accepted the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of the commission of these offences by Mr Davies. The panel therefore found the allegation proven. Findings as to a conviction of a relevant offence The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Davies, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Davies 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; and o not undermining the rule of 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 offences were committed by Mr Davies prior to the coming into force of the Teachers Standards. Therefore, the panel had regard to its knowledge and experience of teaching standards at that time and considered that the teacher and pupil boundary had been an important one, and Mr Davies had breached this in his conduct. The panel noted that Mr Davies’ actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting, as Mr Davies’ conviction relates to assault on a child during a school trip. 7 The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offences could have had an impact on the safety and security of pupils and members of the public given the harm caused in assaulting a child. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Davies’ 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 noted that Mr Davies’ behaviour ultimately led to a sentence of imprisonment, which was indicative of the seriousness of the offences committed. The panel also considered the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. This was a case concerning offences involving sexual activity, which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel considered Mr Davies’ conduct to be very serious, as he was convicted of indecent assault on a child during a school trip. The panel noted that Mr Davies was in a position of power over a child and breached his position of trust. The Judge stated in the sentencing remarks dated 15 November 2024 that Mr Davies was “in a position of trust” and “as abuses of trust go, it is an extreme example”. As such, the Judge stated that he “would be completely failing” in his public duty if he did not impose an immediate custodial sentence. In the sentencing remarks dated 15 November 2024, the Judge also stated that Mr Davies had “never offended previously” and had “not offended since”. Additionally, the Judge stated that Mr Davies was an “excellent school teacher” and that he “did a very great deal to enrich the lives of so many children”. However, the panel noted that it had no direct evidence which could attest to Mr Davies’ record as a teacher. Whilst the panel noted the sentencing remarks in relation to Mr Davies’ previous ability as a teacher, the panel found the seriousness of the offending behaviour that led to the conviction was relevant to Mr Davies’ fitness to be a teacher. The panel considered a finding that this conviction was a relevant offence was necessary to reaffirm clear standards of conduct so as to maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. As such, the panel determined that the allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of S