Mr Louis 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 Louis Davies

Teacher reference number: 4172630

Teacher's date of birth: 26 September 1986

Location teacher worked: Sturminster Newton, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 to 26 February 2026

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 Louis Davies formerly employed in Sturminster Newton, 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 Louis Davies: Professional conduct panel outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education February 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Witnesses 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 15 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 20 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Louis Davies Teacher ref number: 4172630 Teacher date of birth: 26 September 1986 TRA reference: 24793 Date of determination: 26 February 2026 Former employer: Sturminster Newton High School, Dorset (“the School”) Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 February 2026 to 26 February 2026 by way of a virtual hearing, to consider the case of Mr Louis Davies. The panel members were Mr Peter Ward (lay panellist – in the chair), Ms Kelly Dooley (teacher panellist) and Mr Philip Jolowicz (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Ms Kimberley Clayton of Birketts LLP solicitors. The presenting officer for the TRA was Ms Matilda Hesleton of Browne Jacobson LLP solicitors. Mr Louis Davies was not present and was not represented. The hearing took place in public and was recorded. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of proceedings dated 3 December 2025. It was alleged that Mr Davies was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that, while working as a music teacher at Sturminster Newton High School in or around September 2024: 1. He engaged in inappropriate physical contact within the School with Individual A, by: a) Kissing her; b) Allowing her to perform oral sex on him; c) Playing with her underwear; 2. He sent an inappropriate message to Individual A by sending a photograph of his desk with the words “plenty of space for a blow job”. 3. His conduct as may be found to be proven at allegations 1 and/or 2 above was sexual in nature and/or sexually motivated. 4. He failed to take appropriate action with regards to a safeguarding concern in that he failed to disclose that Individual A had disclosed to him that she had had sex with a teacher at a previous school. Mr Davies made no admission as to the facts of allegation 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3, and 4. He also made no admission as to whether his conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Notice of hearing and response – pages 5 to 18 Section 2: TRA Witness Statements – pages 20 to 65 Section 3: TRA documents – pages 67 to 154 Section 4: Teacher documents – pages n/a to n/a 5 The panel admitted three additional documents, namely the presenting officer’s written preliminary applications, as they were relevant to the proceedings and were considered by the panel when determining the presenting officer’s applications to proceed in the teacher’s absence, to grant special measures for Pupil A, and to admit the hearsay evidence. Therefore, in addition, the panel agreed to accept the following: Application to proceed in the teacher’s absence – to be numbered pages 155 to 162 Application to request for Pupil A to give evidence with witness supporter – to be numbered pages 163 to 172 Application to admit hearsay evidence – to be numbered pages 173 to 176 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing and the additional documents that the panel decided to admit. In the consideration of this case, the panel had regard to the document Teacher misconduct: Disciplinary procedures for the teaching profession May 2020, (the “Procedures”). Witnesses The panel heard oral evidence from the following witnesses called by the presenting officer: Witness A – Pupil A Witness B – [REDACTED] Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. On 1 September 2024, Mr Davies commenced his employment at Sturminster Newton High School (the “School”). On 13 September 2024, Pupil A made a disclosure to the School, and reported that Individual A, [REDACTED], had told them she had performed oral sex on Mr Davies in the music classroom shortly before registration, and seen screenshots that Mr Davies had messaged Individual A a picture of his classroom desk with the message “plenty of space for a blow job”. 6 Witness B, [REDACTED], met separately with Individual A and Mr Davies to obtain their accounts. Individual A acknowledged exchanging flirtatious messages with Mr Davies but denied any physical contact. Mr Davies accepted sending the desk photograph and accompanying message but denied that any sexual activity had occurred in school. On 16 September 2024, the School held a second meeting with Mr Davies. In this meeting, he admitted for the first time that he and Individual A had kissed in the music room before registration earlier in the week, and that they had exchanged sexualised images and messages outside school hours. On 17 September 2024, Mr Davies emailed Individual C to tell him he had remembered that Individual A made a disclosure about engaging in sexual intercourse with a teacher at another school. On 18 September 2024, the matter was formally referred to LADO, and an initial evaluation meeting was held. On 23 September 2024, a follow-up LADO meeting took place. The LADO and the School mutually determined that the allegations were substantiated. On the same day, the School issued a dismissal letter to Mr Davies, terminating his employment for gross misconduct. On 23 October 2024, the School submitted a mandatory referral to the Disclosure and Barring Service (“DBS”) due to safeguarding concerns arising from the case. On 5 February 2025, the School sent a referral to the TRA. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegation(s) against you proved, for these reasons: 1. You engaged in inappropriate physical contact within the School with Individual A, by: a) Kissing her; b) Allowing her to perform oral sex on you; c) Playing with her underwear; The panel considered the oral and written statement of Pupil A, who stated that they arrived at the School at around 8:00 to 8:20am on or around 13 September 2024, before registration at 8:30am. They stated that Individual A came up to them just before 7 registration and asked them if her lipstick was smudged, and told them she had just given Mr Davies a blow job in his classroom. Pupil A further stated that on the same day, Individual A told them that Mr Davies had “played with her underwear underneath her dress” in his classroom. They stated that they did not ask for further details. The panel noted that Pupil A’s written statement given during the School’s investigation, dated 13 September 2024, was consistent with her oral and written evidence to the panel. The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness B, who stated that on or around 13 September 2024, he was made aware of a disclosure from Pupil A relating to Mr Davies engaging in sexual acts with Individual A in School. He stated that Pupil A disclosed to the [REDACTED] that Individual A had given oral sex to Mr Davies in the music classroom. He stated that he was told Pupil A showed messages and screenshots that they had received from Individual A, and that one of these included a picture of Mr Davies’ school desk, and a comment that there was “plenty of space for a blow job”. Witness B stated that the matter was passed to him, and on 13 and 23 September 2024, he interviewed Individual A who denied that anything had happened between her and Mr Davies. He stated that that he showed her the screenshot of the message relating to a blow job, and Individual A then admitted that she had received the message from Mr Davies. Witness B submitted that he also interviewed Mr Davies on 13 September 2024, and stated that Mr Davies denied any wrongdoing, but once he showed him the screenshot of the ‘blow job’ message, he admitted he had sent this to Individual A, as a “flippant remark” and joke. Witness B stated that he interviewed Mr Davies again on 16 September 2024, and he denied the allegations relating to playing with Individual A’s underwear and engaging in oral sex at the School, but did admit to sharing a kiss with Individual A in the classroom. The panel also had sight of a picture of WhatsApp messages, between Individual A and Pupil A which included a message from Pupil A stating “KEEP THE DOOR LOCKED” to which Individual A replied “yes shall do”. The panel noted that Pupil A told Individual A when Mr Davies had a free period, and that they spoke about Individual B being aware of what was going on. Allegation 1 (a): The panel considered the evidence relating to whether Mr Davies had kissed Individual A. The panel noted that which was recorded as the teacher’s account in his meeting with Witness B in which he stated that no sexual activity had taken place and that the only physical contact had been a kiss. 8 The panel noted that in the meeting notes of 16 September 2024 with Mr Davies and Witness B, it stated that Mr Davies had said “we shared a very quick kiss, there was no one around, and that was the only thing, this was in the music room.” The panel also notes that in the meeting notes of 17 September 2024 with Individual A and Witness B, when Individual A was asked whether she and Mr Davies had kissed in or outside of school, she had said “no and [Individual A] said she did not see him outside of school.” The panel took into account that the teacher initially denied any physical contact and later, according to the written notes and Witness B’s account stated that there had been a kiss. The panel agreed that this was not the type of information an individual would be likely to volunteer unless it had occurred. Having considered the evidence as a whole and on the balance of probabilities, the panel was satisfied that the TRA had proven that Mr Davies kissed Individual A within the School and that this was inappropriate physical contact. Accordingly, the panel found allegation 1(a) proven. Allegation 1 (b): The panel noted that Mr Davies denied the conduct alleged in allegation 1 (b). The panel carefully considered the evidence of Pupil A, who reported that Individual A had told them she had performed oral sex on the teacher. The panel also noted that in Pupil A’s witness statement, they had stated that on or around 13 September 2024, Individual A had “asked me if her lipstick was smudged because ‘she had just given Mr Davies a blow job in his classroom.’” The panel found Pupil A to be a credible witness and that their oral and written evidence was consistent with their contemporaneous written disclosure on 13 September 2024 and given without any apparent motive to fabricate. The panel noted that a lot of the evidence was hearsay but given that it had the chance to interview Pupil A and interrogate the evidence it placed a large amount of weight on that evidence. The panel noted that they had been informed that Pupil A and Individual A had been close friends for approximately twelve months, and there was no evidence of animosity or any reason for Pupil A to invent such a disclosure. The panel considered that their discomfort when describing the incident during their oral evidence also demonstrated the authenticity of their account. The panel noted that Individual A denied any physical contact with Mr Davies but accepted that she may have done so due [REDACTED]. The panel also noted that when Mr Davies was asked by Witness B in the meeting on 16 September 2024 if Individual A had performed oral sex on him in the classroom, Mr Davies had stated “absolutely this did not happen.” 9 The panel also considered documentary evidence, including the screenshot sent on 11 September 2024 referred to in allegation 2 and messages exchanged between Pupil A and Individual A, which appeared to be consistent with Individual A having referred to the act and with Pupil A’s later disclosure. The panel considered that the screenshot appeared to precede the disclosure and formed part of a pattern supporting Pupil A’s evidence. On the balance of probabilities, the panel accepted that Mr Davies allowed Individual A to perform oral sex on him within the School and that this was inappropriate physical contact. The panel therefore found allegation 1(b) proven. Allegation 1 (c): The panel considered that Mr Davies and Individual A denied the conduct alleged in allegation 1(c). The panel noted that when Mr Davies was asked by Witness B in the meeting on 16 September 2024 whether he had played with Individual A’s underwear, Mr Davies had stated “the touching of underwear is a no, absolutely not.” The panel also noted that the notes of the meeting with Witness B and Individual A on 17 September 2024, when asked about whether Mr Davies played with her underwear, Individual A had stated “no never heard of this and this didn't happen.” However, having determined that Pupil A was a credible witness and that their account carried a large amount of weight, the panel considered that its findings on allegation 1(b) increased the likelihood of further sexual activity having taken place. The panel found that Pupil A’s written evidence, in which they stated that Individual A had told them that Mr Davies had “played with her underwear underneath her dress” in his classroom, was corroborated by their contemporaneous written disclosure dated 13 September 2024. The panel considered that Individual A’s denial did not undermine the reliability of Pupil A’s account. The panel concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Davies had played with Individual A’s underwear within School and that this was inappropriate physical contact and the panel found allegation 1(c) proven. Accordingly, the panel found allegations 1(a), 1(b) and 1(c) proven on the balance of probabilities . 2. You sent an inappropriate message to Individual A by sending a photograph of your desk with the words “plenty of space for a blow job”. The panel had sight of a photograph taken by Pupil A of the messages Mr Davies had sent Individual A. The panel noted that the message appeared to indicate that Mr Davies had sent a message stating “plenty of space for a blow job”, and an image of the underneath of his classroom desk. 10 The panel considered the written statement of Pupil A dated 8 July 2025 and their oral evidence. Pupil A stated that Individual A would tell them about Mr Davies. They stated that on or around 11 September 2024, Individual A sent them a screenshot of her messages with Mr Davies. Pupil A stated that the screenshot included Mr Davies sending a photograph of underneath his school desk, accompanied by the text “plenty of space for a blow job”. The panel considered the written statement of Individual D, who stated that on one occasion, Individual A came up to her telling her that Mr Davies had sent her a picture of a desk and a message about giving blow jobs. She stated that she could not recall exact details, but that she was told relatively promptly after it took place, within the same week, probably about one or two days after. Individual D submitted that Individual A also told her that she had shown a screenshot of the message she was referencing to one of her friends, Pupil A. The panel placed weight on Pupil A’s screenshot and on the admission made by Mr Davies in the meeting with Witness B on 13 September 2024 that he had sent the message. Although Individual D had not seen the screenshot, the panel noted that her evidence regarding what she had been told was consistent with the account provided by Pupil A. Taking Mr Davies’ own admission and the corroborative accounts provided, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the TRA had proven that Mr Davies sent an inappropriate message to Individual A by sending a photograph of his desk with the words “plenty of space for a blow job.” Accordingly, the panel found allegation 2 proven on the balance of probabilities. 3. Your conduct as may be found to be proven at allegations 1 and/or 2 above was sexual in nature and/or sexually motivated. The panel’s attention was drawn to section 78 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and to the cases of Sait v The General Medical Council [2018], Basson v General Medical Council [2018] and The General Medical Council v Haris [2020] EWHC 2518. The panel considered whether the conduct was sexually motivated. It noted that in Basson it was stated that, “A sexual motive means that the conduct was done either in pursuit of sexual gratification or in pursuit of a sexual relationship”. The panel had found proven that Mr Davies had “shared a kiss” with Individual A in the classroom, as recorded in the meeting notes dated 16 September 2024, and that he had allowed Individual A to perform oral sex on him and played with her underwear within the School. The panel had also found proven that Mr Davies sent a sexualised message to Individual A by sending the photograph of his classroom desk accompanied by the words “plenty of space for a blow job.” The panel further noted that in the meeting on 16 September 2024 with Mr Davies and Witness B, Mr Davies accepted engaging in 11 sexualised conversations with Individual A outside school hours, including discussions about “size of sexual organs”, and that he had exchanged sexualised images with her. The panel considered that the conduct which it had found proven was inherently sexual in nature. It involved a combination of physical intimate contact within school premises and a sexualised message with an explicit reference to a sex acts. The panel then went on to consider whether Mr Davies’ conduct, as found proven, was sexually motivated. In light of the evidence, the panel concluded that on the balance of probabilities, the conduct was sexually motivated. There was no evidence of any plausible innocent explanation for kissing Individual A in a classroom nor for sending the explicitly sexual message “plenty of space for a blow job” alongside other sexualised exchanges. The panel recognised that certain acts such as kissing and oral sex are inherently sexual and concluded that the acts proven under allegations 1(a), 1(b), 1(c) and 2 were sexual in nature. The panel considered that a reasonable person would regard this behaviour as sexual. In light of the evidence provided, the panel was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that Mr Davies’ conduct as found proven at allegations 1 and 2 was sexual in nature and sexually motivated. Accordingly, the panel found allegation 3 proven on the balance of probabilities. 4. You failed to take appropriate action with regards to a safeguarding concern in that you failed to disclose that Individual A had disclosed to you that she had had sex with a teacher at a previous school. The panel had sight of the email from Mr Davies to Individual C, dated 17 September 2024, which set out that he remembered that Individual A had disclosed information regarding sexual conduct at [REDACTED]. This correspondence was forwarded to Witness B as part of the School’s investigation. The email stated that Individual A had shared that she had intercourse with a teacher in his classroom, on more than one occasion, at [REDACTED]. The panel also noted that Mr Davies claimed in the email that he remembered this at “9.30pm last night” and that he didn’t want it to be “construde” [sic] that he did not purposely share this information or that he was trying to get Individual A or others in trouble to “save my own skin”. He further stated that the “allegations are completely false.” The panel considered the oral evidence and written statement of Witness B, who stated that during the School’s investigation, Mr Davies was supported by Individual C, [REDACTED]. He stated that on 17 September 2024, Mr Davies sent an email to Individual C saying that he remembered Individual A disclosing information a week ago regarding sexual conduct within another school where she had intercourse with a teacher 12 on more than one occasion, in his classroom. Witness B stated that he was forwarded the email by Individual C, and that this was a concerning issue and should have been reported immediately. The panel noted the uncertainty regarding the timing of when Individual A allegedly told Mr Davies about the previous relationship and how much time elapsed before Mr Davies reported it to Individual C. The panel considered that Mr Davies’ email to Individual C on 17 September 2024 indicated that he had not reported the matter to the School at the time it was made and that Mr Davies’ email acknowledged that this should have been done. The panel also accepted that, regardless of whether he believed the disclosure to be true, the appropriate safeguarding response would have been to inform the headteacher immediately if you had concerns about an adult currently working at a school. The panel took into account the evidence of Witness B, who explained that Mr Davies had undertaken safeguarding training at the School prior to the start of term in September and that failing to disclose past sexual activity involving a teacher at another school was inconsistent with the standards of conduct and integrity expected of teaching staff. Having considered the evidence as a whole, the panel concluded that Mr Davies failed to take appropriate action in relation to the safeguarding concern. The panel was satisfied, on the balance of probabilities, that he failed to disclose, when the information was first provided to him, that Individual A had told him she had had sex with a teacher at a previous school. In failing to report this disclosure at the time he received it, the panel found that Mr Davies failed to take appropriate action with regard to a safeguarding concern. Accordingly, the panel found allegation 4 proven on the balance of probabilities. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found the allegations proved, the panel went on to consider whether the facts of those proved allegations amounted to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. 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 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: 13 • 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 • 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 Davies involved breaches of Keeping Children Safe In Education (“KCSIE”). The panel considered that Mr Davies was in breach of the following provisions of the September 2024 guidance (which was applicable at the time of the conduct): • Paragraph 70: “If staff have a safeguarding concern or an allegation of harming or posing a risk of harm to children is made about another member of staff (including supply staff, volunteers, and contractors), then… this should be referred to the headteacher or principal…” • Paragraph 116: “School and college staff should be proactive in sharing information as early as possible to help identify, assess and respond to risks or concerns about the safety and welfare of children…” The panel was also satisfied that the conduct of Mr Davies involved breaches of Working Together to Safeguard Children. The panel considered the expectations contained in that guidance, including the requirement that all professionals share safeguarding information even where the concern relates to events outside their own organisation. The panel noted that Working Together to Safeguard Children sets out how agencies such as schools, the police and local authorities should work collaboratively at a multi‑agency level. The panel concluded that these provisions were relevant to the safeguarding concerns in allegation 4. The panel also considered whether Mr Davies’ conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences listed on pages 12 and 13 of the Advice. The Advice indicates that where behaviours associated with such an offence exist, a panel is likely to conclude that an individual’s conduct would amount to unacceptable professional conduct. The panel found that none of these offence types were relevant. 14 The panel noted that although the allegations arose within the School, some of Mr Davies’ conduct with Individual A occurred outside the education setting. The panel considered that the conduct was nonetheless capable of affecting his fulfilment of his teaching role because it involved blurred professional boundaries with a young adult who was [REDACTED] at the School. The panel considered that such behaviour risked undermining trust and confidence in Mr Davies’ ability to maintain appropriate relationships with pupils and those connected to the School. The panel was also mindful that aspects of the conduct were subsequently shared with Pupil A, who was [REDACTED], demonstrating that behaviour occurring outside the School could still have a harmful impact within it. The panel noted that Mr Davies failed to maintain professional boundaries in circumstances where pupils were on site and where his classroom was located in a central and publicly accessible corridor. The panel also took into account his failure to disclose the safeguarding information provided by Individual A, despite having undertaken safeguarding training prior to the start of term. The panel found that he did not comply with the expectations set out in KCSIE, including the requirement that all staff report safeguarding concerns immediately to the designated safeguarding lead or headteacher. The panel concluded that his failure to notify the School placed pupils at another school at potential risk and fell below the standards of conduct and integrity expected of a teacher. The panel also considered the oral evidence of Witness B regarding the School’s code of conduct, which, even if it did not prohibit staff relationships in themselves, required staff to conduct themselves in a manner that upheld the ethos of the School and maintained appropriate professional boundaries. The panel found that Mr Davies’ conduct was inconsistent with these expectations, particularly given the potential proximity of pupils to the classroom where these activities took place and the inappropriateness of the physical contact that occurred on school premises. The panel was not provided with any evidence of mitigating circumstances that might have affected Mr Davies’ conduct or behaviour at the relevant time. The panel concluded that Mr Davies’ behaviour demonstrated a lack of professional judgment, a failure to adhere to safeguarding requirements and a disregard for the standards set out in statutory guidance and the School’s code of conduct. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Davies amounted to misconduct of a serious nature which fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. Accordingly, the panel was satisfied that Mr Davies’ conduct amounted to unacceptable professional conduct. 15 In relation to whether Mr Davies’ actions amounted to conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, the panel took into account the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. It considered the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. The panel also took account of the uniquely influential role that teachers can hold in pupils’ lives and the fact that pupils must be able to view teachers as role models in the way that they behave. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Davies’ conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. The panel found that none of these offence types were relevant. The panel considered whether Mr Davies’ conduct had the potential to bring the teaching profession into disrepute. It noted that teachers are expected to model high standards of personal and professional behaviour and the conduct proven under allegations 1 and 2 involved behaviour on school premises in circumstances where pupils were present on site. The panel agreed that parents would not expect such conduct to take place in a school setting and that the behaviour would reasonably undermine public confidence in the profession. The panel also considered the effect of Mr Davies’ conduct on pupils’ perceptions of teachers as role models. The panel agreed that teachers must be trusted to act with integrity, exercise sound judgment and prioritise pupil welfare. The fact that the conduct occurred in a setting where pupils could have become aware of it further heightened the risk of reputational damage. The panel also took into account that the failure to disclose safeguarding information formed part of the wider pattern of conduct, which was inconsistent with what the public is entitled to expect of teachers. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. The panel considered that Mr Davies’ conduct could undermine confidence in the safeguarding culture of schools and potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Davies’ actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State Given the panel’s findings in respect of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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. 16 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 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 maintenance of public confidence in the profession, declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct within the teaching profession, and that prohibition strikes the right balance between the rights of the teacher and the public interest, if they are in conflict. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Davies, which involved inappropriate physical contact within a classroom and sexualised messaging including the phrase “plenty of space for a blow job”, together with a failure to take appropriate safeguarding action, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils and the protection of other members of the public. Similarly, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Davies 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 Davies was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 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 Davies in the profession. There was no evidence before the panel demonstrating that Mr Davies had exceptional ability as an educator, and the panel concluded that the adverse public interest considerations outweighed any interest in retaining him in the profession, as his behaviour represented a fundamental breach of the standards 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 Davies. 17 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; • misconduct seriously affecting the …safeguarding and well-being of pupils, and particularly where there is a continuing risk; • sexual misconduct, e.g. involving actions that were sexually motivated or of a sexual nature…; and • failure in their duty of care towards a child, including exposing a child to risk or failing to promote the safety and welfare of the children (as set out in Part 1 of KCSIE). 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 the mitigating factors. Mitigating factors may indicate that a prohibition order would not be appropriate or proportionate. There was no evidence that Mr Davies’ actions were not deliberate, and there was no evidence to suggest that Mr Davies was acting under extreme duress. There was no evidence provided to the panel that Mr Davies demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal or professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. Mr Davies had only recently commenced employment at the School on 1 September 2024 and was still within his probationary period at the time the incidents occurred. The panel was not provided with evidence to suggest that the conduct was out of character. The panel noted that the bundle did not contain any character statements or references attesting to Mr Davies’ good character or to his abilities as a teacher. The panel also considered whether there was any evidence of insight or remorse. The materials showed that Mr Davies’ account changed during the School’s internal investigation. On 13 September 2024, he denied any physical contact with Individual A however, on 16 September 2024, he admitted “sharing a kiss” with her in the classroom, acknowledged exchanging sexualised messages, and he accepted sending the message “plenty of space for a blow job.” He also expressed being “devastated that my trust has been broken” and subsequently blocked Individual A on all platforms. However, the panel considered that this expression of distress centred mainly on the breach of trust between himself and Individual A rather than on the impact of his actions on pupils and colleagues. 18 The panel noted two comments made by Mr Davies during his interview with Witness B on 16 September 2024 which indicated some awareness that aspects of his conduct had been inappropriate. When asked why he hadn’t initially disclosed the kiss with Individual A, Mr Davies stated, “yes I should have said something, I didn’t and that is purely on me and I take responsibility for it,” and also accepted that “from the school educational establishment sharing a quick kiss is unprofessional. The photograph of the desk and connotations, although humour was inferred, was unprofessional.” The panel acknowledged that these statements demonstrated a degree of recognition that parts of his behaviour had fallen below the standards expected of a teacher. However, the panel considered that this amounted to only limited insight and remorse. These comments were made in the immediate context of the School’s internal disciplinary process and were not followed by any sustained engagement with the TRA proceedings. Mr Davies did not provide any further explanation or reflection, and did not demonstrate any broader understanding of the safeguarding implications or the seriousness of his actions. The panel found that this lack of engagement significantly undermined the weight that could be placed on the limited expressions of responsibility he had made during the School’s investigation. 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 Davies of prohibition. The panel considered whether to recommend a prohibition order and noted that there was no mitigation before it that might reduce the seriousness of the conduct. While the panel acknowledged that Mr Davies had shown some limited insight during the School’s disciplinary process, this was confined to isolated comments and was not supported by any ongoing reflection or acceptance of responsibility. He did not engage with the TRA proceedings, provided no further evidence of remorse or insight, offered no material addressing the impact of his behaviour, and provided no testimonials. The panel therefore considered that the limited comments made during the School’s internal process carried little mitigating weight. The panel considered the seriousness of the conduct found proven, including the safeguarding concerns and the sexual nature of the behaviour, and determined that the public interest considerations outweighed Mr Davies’ interests. The panel noted that teachers are expected to uphold high standards of conduct and that parents and members of the public must be able to trust teachers to act appropriately at all times. The 19 panel concluded that, given the seriousness of the conduct found proven and the lack of mitigation, a prohibition order was proportionate and necessary to protect pupils and maintain public confidence in the teaching profession. 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 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 two 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. The panel found that the facts found proven engaged the following category: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons... The panel had already found proven that Mr Davies engaged in inherently sexual acts with Individual A on school premises, including kissing and allowing her to perform oral sex, and sent a sexually explicit message to her. The panel concluded that Mr Davies’ conduct was sexual in nature and included behaviour that is sexually motivated which was within the definition of serious sexual misconduct set out in the Advice. These acts occurred while pupils were present on site and in a classroom situated in a central corridor, creating a real potential for a pupil to witness the behaviour. These findings demonstrated conduct that was capable of causing harm and were wholly inconsistent with the standards of integrity and professionalism expected of a teacher and weighed in favour of not offering a review period. The Advice also indicates that there are certain other types of cases where it is likely that the public interest will have greater relevance and weigh in favour of a longer period before a review is considered appropriate. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. The panel took into account the seriousness of the sexual misconduct, the potential risk that pupils could have witnessed the behaviour that took place within the School, and the fact that the conduct occurred within a short period and soon after safeguarding training had been provided. The panel considered the lack of insight shown by Mr Davies and the resulting risk of repetition, noting that he had not acknowledged the seriousness of the behaviour, had dismissed the message with the words “plenty of space for a blow job” as a “flippant remark”, and had shown a lack of understanding of the safeguarding implications of his conduct. The panel agreed that these matters demonstrated an ongoing risk such that a review period would not be appropriate. 20 Taking these factors into account, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the continuing risk identified by the panel, it concluded that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate. Therefore, the panel found that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for a prohibition order to be recommended without provision 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 unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Louis Davies should be the subject of a prohibition order, with no provision for a review period. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Davies is 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 • 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 Davies involved breaches of the responsibilities and duties set out in statutory guidance ‘Keeping children safe in education’ and/or involved breaches of ‘Working Together to Safeguard Children’. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Davies fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. 21 The findings of misconduct are particularly serious as they include a teacher engaging in sexual activity on school premises. 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Davies, and the impact that will have on the teacher, is proportionate and in the public interest. In this case, I have considered the extent to which a prohibition order would protect children and safeguard pupils. The panel offers this observation: “In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Davies, which involved inappropriate physical contact within a classroom and sexualised messaging including the phrase “plenty of space for a blow job”, together with a failure to take appropriate safeguarding action, there was a strong public interest consideration in respect of the protection of pupils and the protection of other members of the public.” A prohibition order would therefore prevent such a risk from being present in the future. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: “The panel also considered whether there was any evidence of insight or remorse. The materials showed that Mr Davies’ account changed during the School’s internal investigation. On 13 September 2024, he denied any physical contact with Individual A however, on 16 September 2024, he admitted “sharing a kiss” with her in the classroom, acknowledged exchanging sexualised messages, and he accepted sending the message “plenty of space for a blow job.” He also expressed being “devastated that my trust has been broken” and subsequently blocked Individual A on all platforms. However, the panel considered that this expression of distress centred mainly on the breach of trust between himself and Individual A rather than on the impact of his actions on pupils and colleagues. The panel noted two comments made by Mr Davies during his interview with Witness B on 16 September 2024 which indicated some awareness that aspects of his conduct had been inappropriate. When asked why he hadn’t initially disclosed the kiss with Individual A, Mr Davies stated, “yes I should have said something, I didn’t and that is 22 purely on me and I take responsibility for it,” and also accepted that “from the school educational establishment sharing a quick kiss is unprofessional. The photograph of the desk and connotations, although humour was inferred, was unprofessional.” The panel acknowledged that these statements demonstrated a degree of recognition that parts of his behaviour had fallen below the standards expected of a teacher. However, the panel considered that this amounted to only limited insight and remorse. These comments were made in the immediate context of the School’s internal disciplinary process and were not followed by any sustained engagement with the TRA proceedings. Mr Davies did not provide any further explanation or reflection, and did not demonstrate any broader understanding of the safeguarding implications or the seriousness of his actions. The panel found that this lack of engagement significantly undermined the weight that could be placed on the limited expressions of responsibility he had made during the School’s investigation.” In my judgement, the lack of evidence of insight and/or remorse 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 makes this observation: “The panel also considered the effect of Mr Davies’ conduct on pupils’ perceptions of teachers as role models. The panel agreed that teachers must be trusted to act with integrity, exercise sound judgment and prioritise pupil welfare. The fact that the conduct occurred in a setting where pupils could have become aware of it further heightened the risk of reputational damage. The panel also took into account that the failure to disclose safeguarding information formed part of the wider pattern of conduct, which was inconsistent with what the public is entitled to expect of teachers. The findings of misconduct are serious, and the conduct displayed would be likely to have a negative impact on the individual’s status as a teacher. The panel considered that Mr Davies’ conduct could undermine confidence in the safeguarding culture of schools and potentially damage the public’s perception of a teacher. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Davies’ actions constituted conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of a teacher engaging in sexual activity on school premises in this case and the very 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 23 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, 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 Davies himself. The panel makes this comment: “There was no evidence provided to the panel that Mr Davies demonstrated exceptionally high standards in his personal or professional conduct or that he had contributed significantly to the education sector. Mr Davies had only recently commenced employment at the School on 1 September 2024 and was still within his probationary period at the time the incidents occurred. The panel was not provided with evidence to suggest that the conduct was out of character. The panel noted that the bundle did not contain any character statements or references attesting to Mr Davies’ good character or to his abilities as a teacher.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Davies 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 serious nature of the misconduct found, which included both engaging in sexual activity on school premises and failure to follow proper safeguarding procedures. I have also placed considerable weight on the findings that there was neither evidence that Mr Davies’ actions were not deliberate nor committed under extreme duress. Additionally, I have placed weight on the panel’s findings in respect of Mr Davies’ insight and remorse, and the consequent risk of repetition. I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Davies 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. 24 In doing so, it has referred 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. The panel found that the facts found proven engaged the following category: • serious sexual misconduct e.g. where the act was sexually motivated and resulted in, or had the potential to result in, harm to a person or persons... The panel had already found proven that Mr Davies engaged in inherently sexual acts with Individual A on school premises, including kissing and allowing her to perform oral sex, and sent a sexually explicit message to her. The panel concluded that Mr Davies’ conduct was sexual in nature and included behaviour that is sexually motivated which was within the definition of serious sexual misconduct set out in the Advice. These acts occurred while pupils were present on site and in a classroom situated in a central corridor, creating a real potential for a pupil to witness the behaviour. These findings demonstrated conduct that was capable of causing harm and were wholly inconsistent with the standards of integrity and professionalism expected of a teacher and weighed in favour of not offering a review period.” I have considered the panel’s concluding comments: “The panel took into account the seriousness of the sexual misconduct, the potential risk that pupils could have witnessed the behaviour that took place within the School, and the fact that the conduct occurred within a short period and soon after safeguarding training had been provided. The panel considered the lack of insight shown by Mr Davies and the resulting risk of repetition, noting that he had not acknowledged the seriousness of the behaviour, had dismissed the message with the words “plenty of space for a blow job” as a “flippant remark”, and had shown a lack of understanding of the safeguarding implications of his conduct. The panel agreed that these matters demonstrated an ongoing risk such that a review period would not be appropriate. Taking these factors into account, including the seriousness of the misconduct and the continuing risk identified by the panel, it concluded that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would not be appropriate. Therefore, the panel found that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for a prohibition order to be recommended without provision for a review period.” 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 25 are the very serious nature of the misconduct found, as well as the lack of either insight or remorse and 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 Louis Davies 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 allegations found proved against him, I have decided that Mr Davies 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 Davies 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: 3 March 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.