Mr Nicholas Martin

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 Nicholas Martin

Teacher reference number: 0640869

Teacher's date of birth: 17 November 1982

Location teacher worked: Cheltenham, South West England

Date of professional conduct panel: 28 January 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 Nicholas Martin formerly employed in Cheltenham, 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 Nicholas Martin: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education January 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 5 Documents 5 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 6 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 11 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 13 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Nicholas Martin Teacher ref number: 0640869 Teacher date of birth: 17 November 1982 TRA reference: 25452 Date of determination: 28 January 2026 Former employer: St Edward’s, Cheltenham Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 28 January 2026 by way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Nicolas Martin. The panel members were Mrs Michelle Chappell (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Katie Dent (lay panellist) and Mr Steven Boocock (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr Ben Schofield of Blake Morgan LLP. 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 Martin that the allegation be considered without a hearing. Mr Martin provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted being guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer of the TRA and Mr Martin. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 11 November 2025. It was alleged that Mr Martin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute in that whilst working as Head of Sixth Form at St Edwards School, Cheltenham (‘the School’): 1. On or around 14 February 2025, he stated on his application form for the role of Deputy Head (Operations and Compliance), that: a) His date of birth was 17 December 1987, when he knew this was not accurate; b) He achieved a Masters from the University of Cambridge, when he knew this was not the case; and/or c) He sat as a Magistrate around once a month, when he knew this was not the case; 2. On or around 28 January 2025 and/or 18 February 2025 and/or 6 March 2025, he stated on one or more occasion to the School’s Headteacher, that his date of birth was 17 December 1987, when he knew this was not the case. 3. On or around 13 March 2025, he provided the School with an academic certificate that he purported to be from the University of Cambridge. 4. He knew that the academic certificate referred to at paragraph 3 above had not been issued by the University of Cambridge. 5. He created the academic certificate referred to at paragraphs 3 and/or 4 above himself. 6. In or around March 2025, when his was questioned about the authenticity of the academic certificate referred to at paragraphs 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 above, he stated that the academic certificate was genuine, and/or used words to that effect, when he knew this was not the case. 7. From an unknown date, he put that he had achieved a Masters degree from the University of Cambridge on his email signature, when he knew this was not the case. 8. On or around 7 March 2024, he stated on his application form for the role of Head of Sixth Form, that: a) His date of birth was 17 November 2012, when he knew this was not accurate; 5 b) He sat as a Magistrate around once a month, when he knew this was not the case. 9. His conduct at paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(a) and/or 8(b)was: a) Misleading and/or dishonest; and/or b) Lacking in integrity. The panel noted a minor typographical error in the papers for allegation 9 in so far as it also referred to allegation 1(d) and 8(c). This error has not been replicated in the panel’s decision. Summary of evidence Documents Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 4 to 6 Section 2: Notice of proceedings and response – pages 7 to 39 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts – pages 40 to 43 Section 4: Teaching Regulation Agency documents – pages 44 to 257 Section 5: Teacher documents – pages 258 to 270 Section 6: Notice of meeting – pages 271 to 273 The panel members confirmed that they had read all of the documents within the bundle, in advance of the hearing. 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 Martin on 20 October 2025. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. 6 Mr Martin qualified as a teacher in 2006 and took up a teaching post at St Edmunds, Cheltenham (the “School”) in September of that year. In 2024, following making an application, Mr Martin was promoted to Head of Sixth Form (the “2024 application”). In February 2025, Mr Martin made a further application for a Deputy Head position at the School (the “2025 application”). Certain discrepancies in the information Mr Martin provided in his 2025 application were identified and further investigated. This in turn, resulted in further checks being made against his 2024 application, which resulted in a similar discrepancy being identified. The School investigation progressed into a disciplinary hearing following which, the School made a referral to the TRA on 10 April 2025. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: 1. On or around 14 February 2025, you stated on your application form for the role of Deputy Head (Operations and Compliance), that: a) Your date of birth is 17 December 1987, when you knew this was not accurate; b) You achieved a Masters from the University of Cambridge, when you knew this was not the case; and/or c) You sat as a Magistrate around once a month, when you knew this was not the case; 2. On or around 28 January 2025 and/or 18 February 2025 and/or 6 March 2025, you stated on one or more occasion to the School’s Headteacher, that your date of birth was 17 December 1987, when you knew this was not the case. 3. On or around 13 March 2025, you provided the School with an academic certificate that you purported to be from the University of Cambridge. 4. You knew that the academic certificate referred to at paragraph 3 above had not been issued by the University of Cambridge. 5. You created the academic certificate referred to at paragraphs 3 and/or 4 above yourself. 6. In or around March 2025, when you were questioned about the authenticity of the academic certificate referred to at paragraphs 3 and/or 4 and/or 5 above, you 7 stated that the academic certificate was genuine, and/or used words to that effect, when you knew this was not the case. 7. From an unknown date, you put that you had achieved a Masters degree from the University of Cambridge on your email signature, when you knew this was not the case. 8. On or around 7 March 2024, you stated on your application form for the role of Head of Sixth Form, that: a) Your date of birth was 17 November 2012, when you knew this was not accurate; b) You sat as a Magistrate around once a month, when you knew this was not the case. Following his application for the Deputy Head position, Mr Martin’s application was not successful and he did not reach the stage of shortlisted candidates. On reviewing his application against the School’s records, the [REDACTED] noted that the School had a different date of birth recorded on the School’s system than what was declared on his 2025 application. In the 2025 application, Mr Martin declared his date of birth as 17 December 1987, whilst the School’s system had his date of birth as 17 November 1982. The [REDACTED] asked Mr Martin about this apparent discrepancy. In an initial verbal response, Mr Martin stated that it must have been an issue with someone confusing his handwriting. In checking the original employment documents, the [REDACTED] noted that Mr Martin’s passport, driving licence and qualification records all indicated the 1982 date. In follow up emails, Mr Martin further asserted that the earlier 1982 date was incorrect and he had been seeking to correct it with the School for a number of years. He said that the issue related to an error on an old passport. Concerned at the implications as to Mr Martin’s identity, the School made further checks with the [REDACTED] and Department for Education records using the 1987 birth date. No records were found under the 1987 birth date (but there were records held with the original 1982 date). Mr Martin provided updated identification documents both of which (passport and driving licence) showed the 1982 birth date. During an investigatory meeting, Mr Martin stated that he had become so used to writing the 1987 date as a result of his historic passport issue and he must have copied and pasted his date from the previous 2024 application. However, when the 2024 application was reviewed it had a date of birth of 17 November 2012. 8 Mr Martin’s responses to the date of birth issue caused greater scrutiny and checks to be made against the information he supplied in both the 2025 and 2024 applications. The School’s investigation noted that Mr Martin had declared he had a Masters degree in history from the University of Cambridge in his 2025 application, but had a Masters degree in history from Lancaster University in his 2024 application. When asked to provide a copy of his Cambridge degree qualification, Mr Martin provided what he purported to be a copy of the degree certificate and stated that the original was at his [REDACTED] home, as they ‘liked to show it off to friends on weekends’. The School made checks with the University of Cambridge, who confirmed the details on the certificate were not true. This included that the relevant college did not offer the course identified in the certificate. The School also noted that Mr Martin had used the post-nominals “MA (Cantab)” in his email signature. He had also used “JP” as a post-nominal in his signature and stated he sat around once a month as a magistrate in both his 2024 and 2025 applications. The School made checks with HM Courts and Tribunals Service, who confirmed there was no record of a person called Nicholas Martin sitting as a magistrate in the last few years which matched with the School’s own records for Mr Martin’s absences. These further discrepancies resulted in a disciplinary hearing, which took place on 31 March 2025. Mr Martin attended the hearing. During the course of the hearing, Mr Martin made full and substantial admissions to acting dishonestly. He accepted he had provided a false date of birth, had fabricated a certificate to further his earlier false declaration about his qualifications and had not sat as a magistrate for a number of years. Mr Martin explained in the disciplinary hearing that although he didn’t seek to raise this as an excuse for his behaviour, [REDACTED] and was trying to pass himself off as ‘more younger, more dynamic and more fun’. Before the panel was a statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Martin in which he admitted all the allegations. The panel considered that Mr Martin’s admissions were unequivocal and entirely consistent with the surrounding evidence in the case. Accordingly, the panel accepted these admissions and found allegations 1 – 8 proved in full. 9. Your conduct at paragraphs 1(a), 1(b), 1(c), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8(a) and/or 8(b) was: a) Misleading and/or dishonest; and/or b) Lacking in integrity. 9 The panel noted that Mr Martin also had admitted this allegation in full in his statement of agreed facts. However, there was no reference to this admission being in line with the legal definitions the panel must consider, such as the test set out in Ivy v Genting Casinos for dishonesty and Wingate v SRA for integrity. On account of fairness to Mr Martin, the panel went on to consider the evidence in line with these legal principles. In applying the relevant test for dishonesty, the panel firstly considered what Mr Martin knew or believed as to the facts and circumstances in which the alleged dishonesty arose. The panel noted that these acts were purposeful, mainly undertaken in the course of job applications, in which Mr Martin’s express intention was to portray his personal background in a more favourable light in the hope of gaining the promotion. Mr Martin was fully aware of the need to be truthful in such a process. The applications forms also clearly set out the requirement for the information to be truthful. There was no doubt from the evidence that Mr Martin was fully aware when both providing information initially, and in subsequent explanations (including fabricating a document), that he knew he was providing false information. This was a course of action, repeated and sustained, in some instances over a significant period of time. The panel further considered that the ordinary decent person would consider a person proving false information in a job application in order to obtain personal gain, and presenting themselves with qualifications and positions they did not hold, as acting dishonestly. Accordingly, the panel found Mr Martin’s actions were dishonest. This applied to all the allegations with the exception of allegation 8(a). The panel noted that Mr Martin admitted this was a dishonest act in the statement of agreed facts, but there was no explanation as to why a 2012 date was used. Furthermore there was little exploration of that specific date being used in the disciplinary meeting. The panel noted that would have portrayed Mr Martin’s age as being 12 years old for the 2024 application. The panel considered that Mr Martin’s explanation for attempting to appear a ‘few years younger’ would not have extended to such an age gap. It plainly would have been identified as being incorrect and there was a reasonable explanation that such a date was entered as a simple typographical error. Accordingly, the panel was not satisfied it was more likely than not Mr Martin entered the 2012 date in an attempt to purposefully misrepresent his age on that occasion and was therefore not misleading, dishonest or lacking in integrity. It is a well-known principle in regulatory proceedings that acting dishonestly also amounts to acting with a lack of integrity. On that basis the allegation is also proved in relation to acting with a lack of integrity (with the exception of allegation 8(a)). However, the panel noted that the seriousness of this misconduct is fully captured within a finding of dishonesty and therefore the additional finding of acting with a lack of integrity does not change the level of seriousness. 10 The panel further considered the issue of ‘misleading’ was essentially captured in a dishonesty finding. Findings as to unacceptable professional conduct and/or conduct that may bring the profession into disrepute Having found a number of 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 further referred to as “the Advice”. The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Martin, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Martin was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. The panel also considered whether Mr Martin’s 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 the offence of “fraud or serious dishonesty” was relevant. The panel noted that many of Mr Martin’s actions were planned, repeated and sustained. This significantly increased the seriousness of the dishonesty finding. For these reasons, the panel was satisfied that the conduct of Mr Martin 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 Martin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct. In relation to whether Mr Martin’s 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. Central to Mr Martin’s actions were a disregard of fundamental aspects of the education system, that is the integrity of qualifications and the application process. Mr Martin’s actions meant he could not be regarded as a suitable role model in supporting pupils obtaining important qualifications. The panel also noted that both applications related to senior positions at the School 11 where Mr Martin would be expected to provide leadership and be a role model to other colleagues and pupils. In considering the issue of disrepute, the panel also considered whether Mr Martin’s conduct displayed behaviours associated with any of the offences in the list that begins on page 12 of the Advice. As set out above in the panel’s findings as to whether Mr Martin was guilty of unacceptable professional conduct, the Panel found that the offence of “fraud or serious dishonesty” was relevant. The panel considered that Mr Martin’s conduct could potentially damage the public perception of the profession, if a finding of disrepute was not made. For these reasons, the panel found that Mr Martin’s 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. 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 maintenance of public confidence in the profession; • declaring and upholding proper standards of conduct. In the light of the panel’s findings against Mr Martin, which involved multiple instances of dishonest conduct, the panel considered that public confidence in the profession could be seriously weakened if conduct such as that found against Mr Martin were not treated with the utmost seriousness when regulating the conduct of the profession. The panel was also 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 was outside that which could reasonably be tolerated. 12 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. 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; • dishonesty or a lack of integrity, including the deliberate concealment of their actions… especially where these behaviours have been repeated or had serious consequences… 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. The panel considered the list of factors at paragraph 43 of the Advice. The panel considered that none of those listed factors applied in this case. Mr Martin’s actions were deliberate. He was not acting under duress. The panel did note that Mr Martin had been at the School for nearly two decades and there was no suggestion of any previous misconduct at the School. The [REDACTED] is noted as referring to Mr Martin as a ‘good teacher’ and ‘good with the pupils’ in her investigation meeting with Mr Martin. However, the panel did not consider this was evidence of Mr Martin ‘demonstrating exceptionally high standards or significantly contributing to the education sector’. Furthermore, Mr Martin had not provided any character references which may have otherwise spoken of his contributions. The panel took into account that despite earlier repeated dishonesty, Mr Martin had fully and openly engaged with the School’s disciplinary hearing and these regulatory proceedings. The panel considered that in his reflective statement for these proceedings, Mr Martin had demonstrated a high level of insight into his dishonest behaviour. He was able to identify his thought processes as to why he acted in this fashion. [REDACTED]. Importantly, Mr Martin did not seek to excuse his behaviour on account of this [REDACTED] and recognised the seriousness of his dishonest behaviour. Mr Martin had taken full ownership of his actions. The panel considered his expression of remorse to be genuine in light of his open engagement with the issues in this case. The panel considered that Mr Martin’s insight suggested that the ‘risk of repetition’ was reduced. 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. 13 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 of prohibition. The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Martin. The serious nature of the dishonesty in this case meant more weight needed to be attached to protecting the public interest factors of maintaining confidence and upholding and declaring proper standards, than the public interest factor of retaining good teachers in the profession. 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 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. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. 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. One of these includes “fraud or serious dishonesty”. The panel considered that although the mitigating factors identified above were insufficient to balance the competing interests in not recommending a prohibition order, they were materially relevant and capable of significantly mitigating the review period. The panel considered that the competing public interest factors would still be suitably protected if a review was available after a period of two years. The panel therefore decided that the findings indicated a situation in which a review period would be appropriate and, as such, decided that it would be proportionate, in all the circumstances, for the prohibition order to be recommended with provisions for a review period after two years. 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. 14 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 some 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. In this case the panel has also found part of one allegation not proven. I have therefore put those matters from my mind. The panel has made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that Mr Nicholas Martin should be the subject of a prohibition order, with a review period of two years. In particular, the panel has found that Mr Martin is in breach of the following standards: • Teachers must have proper and professional regard for the ethos, policies and practices of the school in which they teach, and maintain high standards in their own attendance and punctuality. The panel finds that the conduct of Mr Martin fell significantly short of the standards expected of the profession. The findings of misconduct are serious as they include a teacher displaying dishonest behaviour. 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 Martin, 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 does not record having considered evidence that Mr Martin’s behaviour directly impacted on the safety and wellbeing of children. I have also taken into account the panel’s comments on insight and remorse, which it sets out as follows: 15 “The panel considered that in his reflective statement for these proceedings, Mr Martin had demonstrated a high level of insight into his dishonest behaviour. He was able to identify his thought processes as to why he acted in this fashion. [REDACTED]. Importantly, Mr Martin did not seek to excuse his behaviour on account of this [REDACTED] and recognised the seriousness of his dishonest behaviour. Mr Martin had taken full ownership of his actions. The panel considered his expression of remorse to be genuine in light of his open engagement with the issues in this case. The panel considered that Mr Martin’s insight suggested that the ‘risk of repetition’ was reduced.” I agree with the panel that the evidence of insight provided by Mr Martin means that there is a reduced risk of repetition. 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 offers these observations: “In relation to whether Mr Martin’s 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. Central to Mr Martin’s actions were a disregard of fundamental aspects of the education system, that is the integrity of qualifications and the application process. Mr Martin’s actions meant he could not be regarded as a suitable role model in supporting pupils obtaining important qualifications. The panel also noted that both applications related to senior positions at the School where Mr Martin would be expected to provide leadership and be a role model to other colleagues and pupils.” “The panel considered that Mr Martin’s conduct could potentially damage the public perception of the profession, if a finding of disrepute was not made.” I am particularly mindful of the finding of dishonesty in this case and the negative impact that such a finding may 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 unacceptable professional conduct and conduct likely to bring the profession into disrepute, in the absence of a 16 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 himself. The panel comments as follows: “The panel did note that Mr Martin had been at the School for nearly two decades and there was no suggestion of any previous misconduct at the School. The [REDACTED] is noted as referring to Mr Martin as a ‘good teacher’ and ‘good with the pupils’ in her investigation meeting with Mr Martin. However, the panel did not consider this was evidence of Mr Martin ‘demonstrating exceptionally high standards or significantly contributing to the education sector’. Furthermore, Mr Martin had not provided any character references which may have otherwise spoken of his contributions.” A prohibition order would prevent Mr Martin 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 panel’s comments concerning the seriousness of the misconduct it found and its potential negative impact on the public’s perception of the profession: “The panel was of the view that prohibition was both proportionate and appropriate. The panel decided that the public interest considerations outweighed the interests of Mr Martin. The serious nature of the dishonesty in this case meant more weight needed to be attached to protecting the public interest factors of maintaining confidence and upholding and declaring proper standards, than the public interest factor of retaining good teachers in the profession. Accordingly, the panel made a recommendation to the Secretary of State that a prohibition order should be imposed with immediate effect.” I have given less weight in my consideration of sanction therefore, to the contribution that Mr Martin 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 a two-year review period. In doing so, the panel has referenced the Advice as follows: 17 “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. None of the listed characteristics were engaged by the panel’s findings. 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. One of these includes “fraud or serious dishonesty”. The panel considered that although the mitigating factors identified above were insufficient to balance the competing interests in not recommending a prohibition order, they were materially relevant and capable of significantly mitigating the review period. The panel considered that the competing public interest factors would still be suitably protected if a review was available after a period of two years.” I have considered whether a two-year 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 I agree with the panel that such a review period is sufficient and appropriate to achieve the aim of maintaining public confidence. These elements are the serious dishonesty found, and the likely injury done to the standing of the profession by his actions. I consider therefore that a two-year review period is required to satisfy the maintenance of public confidence in the profession. This means that Mr Nicholas Martin is prohibited from teaching indefinitely and cannot teach in any school, sixth form college, relevant youth accommodation or children’s home in England. He may apply for the prohibition order to be set aside, but not until 5 February 2028, two years from the date of this order at the earliest. This is not an automatic right to have the prohibition order removed. If he does apply, a panel will meet to consider whether the prohibition order should be set aside. Without a successful application, Mr Martin remains prohibited from teaching indefinitely. Mr Martin 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: 29 January 2026 This decision is taken by the decision maker named above on behalf of the Secretary of State.