Mr Nicholas Saxon

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 Saxon

Teacher reference number: 1964111

Teacher's date of birth: 18 September 1996

Location teacher worked: Stourbridge, West Midlands

Date of professional conduct panel: 24 March 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 Saxon formerly employed in Stourbridge, West Midlands.

Teacher misconduct

Ground Floor, South

Cheylesmore House

5 Quinton RoadCoventryCV1 2WT

Email TRA.Casework@education.gov.uk

Telephone 020 7593 5393

Information about regulating the teaching profession and the process for dealing with serious teacher misconduct.

Mr Nicholas Saxon: Professional conduct panel meeting outcome Panel decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State for Education March 2026 2 Contents Introduction 3 Allegations 4 Summary of evidence 4 Documents 4 Statement of agreed facts 5 Decision and reasons 5 Findings of fact 5 Panel’s recommendation to the Secretary of State 8 Decision and reasons on behalf of the Secretary of State 11 3 Professional conduct panel decision and recommendations, and decision on behalf of the Secretary of State Teacher: Mr Nicholas Saxon Teacher ref number: 1964111 Teacher date of birth: 18 September 1996 TRA reference: 25251 Date of determination: 24 March 2026 Former employer: The Wordsley School, Stourbridge Introduction A professional conduct panel (“the panel”) of the Teaching Regulation Agency (“the TRA”) convened on 24 March 2026 way of a virtual meeting, to consider the case of Mr Nicholas Saxon. The panel members were Mr Chris Major (teacher panellist – in the chair), Ms Sue Davies (lay panellist) and Mr Dara Islam (lay panellist). The legal adviser to the panel was Mr James Corrish of Birketts LLP Solicitors. In advance of the meeting, after taking into consideration the public interest and the interests of justice, the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Saxon that the allegations be considered without a hearing. Mr Saxon provided a signed statement of agreed facts and admitted conviction of a relevant offence. The panel considered the case at a meeting without the attendance of the presenting officer, Ms Shannett Thompson of Kingsley Napley, and without Mr Saxon, or any representative for Mr Saxon. The meeting took place in private. 4 Allegations The panel considered the allegations set out in the notice of meeting dated 20 February 2026. It was alleged that Mr Saxon was guilty of having been convicted of one or more relevant offences whilst working as a science teacher at The Wordsley School (‘the School’) in that: 1. On or around 26 March 2025, he was convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of the following offences: a. Between 17 February 2025 and 20 February 2025 he attempted to engage in sexual communication with a child contrary to Section 15A(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003; b. Between 17 February 2025 and 20 February 2025 he attempted to cause/incite a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity as an offender 18 or over contrary to Section 10(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 Mr Saxon admitted the facts of allegation 1(a) and 1(b) and that the admitted facts amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence, as set out in the response to the notice of referral signed by Mr Saxon on 28 August 2025 and in the statement of agreed facts signed by Mr Saxon on 16 December 2025. Summary of evidence Documents In advance of the hearing, the panel received a bundle of documents which included: Section 1: Chronology and list of key people – pages 3 to 4 Section 2: Notice of referral and response – pages 5 to 13 Section 3: Statement of agreed facts and PO representations – pages 14 to 17 Section 4: TRA exhibits – pages 18 to 78 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 May 2020, (the “Procedures”). 5 Statement of agreed facts The panel considered a statement of agreed facts which was signed by Mr Saxon on 16 December 2025 and subsequently signed by the presenting officer. Decision and reasons The panel announced its decision and reasons as follows: The panel carefully considered the case before it and reached a decision. In advance of the meeting the TRA agreed to a request from Mr Saxon for the allegations to be considered without a hearing. The panel had the ability to direct that the case be considered at a hearing if required in the interests of justice or in the public interest. The panel did not determine that such a direction was necessary or appropriate in this case. Mr Saxon was employed as a science teacher at the School from 1 September 2024, until his employment terminated on 11 April 2025. Between 17 February 2025 and 20 February 2025, Mr Saxon allegedly a) attempted to engage in sexual communication with a child; and b) attempted to cause a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity. Mr Saxon was arrested on 24 February 2025 by West Midlands Police. On 27 February 2025, the matter was referred to the TRA. On 25 February 2025, Mr Saxon was charged with two sexual offences contrary to section 15A(1) and 10(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003. Mr Saxon was later convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court on or around 26 March 2025 and was sentenced to a community order until 27 March 2027. Mr Saxon was also ordered to complete rehabilitation activities for 55 days and undergo alcohol treatment programme for 4 months. Further, Mr Saxon was required to sign the sex offenders register for 5 years; be subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years; pay £150 in court costs to the CPS and pay a £114 victim surcharge. Findings of fact The findings of fact are as follows: The panel found the following particulars of the allegations against you proved, for these reasons: 1. On or around 26 March 2025, you were convicted at Wolverhampton Crown Court of the following offences: 6 a. Between 17 February 2025 and 20 February 2025 you attempted to engage in sexual communication with a child contrary to Section 15A(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 b. Between 17 February 2025 and 20 February 2025 you attempted to cause/incite a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity as an offender 18 or over contrary to Section 10(1)(a) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 The panel considered the statement of agreed facts, signed by Mr Saxon on 16 December 2025. In this statement of agreed facts, Mr Saxon admitted the allegation and further admitted that the facts of the allegation amounted to a conviction of a relevant offence. Notwithstanding this, the panel made a determination based on the facts available to it. The panel noted page 8 of the Teacher Misconduct: the prohibition of teachers (the ‘Advice’), which states that where there has been a conviction, at any time, of a criminal offence, the panel will accept the certificate of conviction as conclusive proof of both the conviction and the facts necessarily implied by the conviction unless exceptional circumstances apply. The panel did not find any exceptional circumstances applicable in this case. The panel had been provided with a copy of the certificate of conviction, dated 16 May 2025, from Wolverhampton Crown Court, which detailed that Mr Saxon had been convicted of one count of “Adult attempt to engage in sexual communication with a child”, and one count of “Attempt to cause/incite a female child under 13 to engage in sexual activity – offender 18 or over”. Mr Saxon was sentenced to a community order until 27 March 2027. Mr Saxon was also ordered to complete rehabilitation activities for 55 days and undergo alcohol treatment programme for 4 months. Further, Mr Saxon was required to sign the sex offenders register for 5 years; be subject to a sexual harm prevention order for 5 years; pay £150 in court costs to the CPS; and pay a £114 victim surcharge. The panel also reviewed a copy of the PNC record which also recorded these offences. After examining the documents before the panel and the admissions in the signed statement of agreed facts, the panel was satisfied that allegations 1(a) and 1(b) were both proven. Findings as to conviction of a relevant offence The panel first considered whether the conduct of Mr Saxon, in relation to the facts found proved, involved breaches of the Teachers’ Standards. 7 The panel considered that, by reference to Part 2, Mr Saxon was in breach of the following standards: • Teachers uphold public trust in the profession and maintain high standards of ethics and behaviour, within and outside school, by o treating pupils with dignity, building relationships rooted in mutual respect, and at all times observing proper boundaries appropriate to a teacher’s professional position o having regard for the need to safeguard pupils’ well-being, in accordance with statutory provisions o showing tolerance of and respect for the rights of others o not undermining fundamental British values, including democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect, [….] • 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 noted that Mr Saxon’s actions were relevant to teaching, working with children and working in an education setting given that the offences he was convicted of involved children. The panel noted that the behaviour involved in committing the offence could have had an impact on the safety and/or security of pupils and/or members of the public. The panel also took account of the way the teaching profession is viewed by others. The panel considered that Mr Saxon’s behaviour in committing the offence could affect public confidence in the teaching profession, given the influence that teachers may have on pupils, parents and others in the community. This was a case concerning an offence involving sexual activity and sexual communication with a child which the Advice states is likely to be considered a relevant offence. The panel noted that this was a criminal offence concerning a child under the age of 13 and Mr Saxon’s engagement with that chil